Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) (No. 2) BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

HEREFORD CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

SURREY BILL [Lords]

WORCESTER CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Drug Pricing

Mr. Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation he has had with the pharmaceutical industry following his statement on 8 November about drug pricing.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): As I announced on 8 November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health will have discussions with the pharmaceutical industry about the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. Arrangements have been made for him to meet representatives of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry shortly.

Mr. Hunter: Can my right hon. Friend give any assurance that measures resulting from that statement will not effectively amount to denying NHS patients certain important drugs? I have in mind in particular the arthritis drug, Distalgesic.

Mr. Fowler: Branded drugs, which have been specifically developed for the relief of pain and inflammation in rheumatism and arthritis, will still be available. At present, Distalgesic is not in that category. We are committed to the limited list scheme, but the whole point of having the consultation period is to listen to the arguments on particular drugs. That is why we are having consultations.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that his first attempt to introduce a rational prescribing policy is to be very warmly welcomed, that he should strongly resist the selfish and distorted propaganda of the pharmaceutical industry, which is now screaming blue murder, and that the only advice he should accept about implementing this very good proposal is independent advice?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he will agree with me that there is a balance to be held in these proposals. It in no one's interest to take measures which will damage the research-based pharmaceutical industry in this country. I believe that in the Government's proposals we are not doing that, and we are making useful savings in the Health Service budget. On those grounds I think that the proposals should, as the right hon. Gentleman says, be supported.

Dr. Mawhinney: I, too, commend my right hon. Friend on the decision that he has taken and on the consultations into which he has entered. Will he take every opportunity, with the rest of us, to make it clear to patients that they will not be medically disadvantaged by the sensible decision that he has taken and announced?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That point needs to be emphasised. There will, of course, be generic alternatives to the branded drugs which will not be prescribed free on the National Health Service, so there is no question of patients being disadvantaged by the steps that we have taken. We are having consultations so that we can ensure that that does not happen.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us on the Liberal Benches accept the benefits of genuine generic substitution, but will he confirm that it is his intention that all drugs presently available will continue to be available either across the counter, because prescription is not required, or by reason of their generic equivalence?

Mr. Fowler: The drugs which are available across the counter will continue to be available across the counter. The vast majority of the drugs that we are talking about do not need a prescription in any event. They can be bought from chemists.
I confirm that the intention is that there should be generic alternatives to the branded drugs that they replace.

Mental Health Act Commission (Membership)

Mr. Stan Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether medical members of the Mental Health Act Commission receive additional sessional fees from their employing authorities in respect of their work with the commission.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Consultants who are members of the Mental Health Act Commission may need to adjust their clinical commitments to accommodate their commission work. If, as a result, patient services might be reduced to an unacceptable level, health authorities should seek to make good the loss by employing a locum or in some other way. If that is not feasible, they may, at their discretion, award payment for one temporary extra session to the commission member.

Mr. Thorne: I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he state whether commissioners who are self-employed or employed by private employers receive payment in the form of fees for their work as commissioners?

Mr. Clarke: They receive expenses. At the moment we do not think that it is a good idea to put all the commissioners on a fee-paying basis. We look sympathetically at any situation in which a member might


suffer hardship or difficulty, but we have an extremely strong commission, with very good members, and they do not have to be paid a fee for their work.

Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the chairman and members of the Mental Health Act Commission on their work, because the commission has been going only a short time but has become a responsible body in this area?

Mr. Clarke: I shall pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations to Lord Colville and his colleagues.

Hospital Wards, South Manchester

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take action to avert the closure of up to eight hospital wards in south Manchester.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): If any such proposals come to us, under well-established procedures, Ministers will decide on their merits.

Mr. Morris: Is the Minister aware of the district administrator's statement that his health authority has done everything that it can to balance its budget by efficiency savings and by reducing equipment, maintenance and building programmes, but that it may still have to close a maternity ward, a children's surgical ward, a chest ward, a chest clinic and even a cancer ward at Christie hospital at weekends? Is it not clear, as the community health council insists, that patient care is now at risk in south Manchester? In view of the Government's oft-repeated assurances that they will protect patient care, will the Minister now act urgently to correct the underfunding of this health authority?

Mr. Patten: I have been following events in south Manchester with care. What the right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten is the increased resources that have been put into south Manchester over the past two years— an additional million of capital and an additional £1·2 million of revenue for cardiology and renal services. More patients are being treated in south Manchester than ever before. There is no truth in the assertion that patients are suffering there. No final decisions have been made about any of the wards to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and, if they are made, Ministers will consider them carefully, as they always do, in the best interests of patients.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: As someone who was a patient in the Wythenshawe hospital for several weeks in the middle of last year, I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware of the tremendous reputation and expertise of the chest unit at Wythenshawe hospital? Does he accept that if the service is severely reduced that is bound to have an adverse effect on the facilities available not only in the district but throughout the region?

Mr. Patten: It is very good of my right hon. and learned Friend to pay that compliment to those who looked after him in that hospital. Of course, we are aware of its high reputation. No recommendations about its future, or the future of any of the wards, have yet been referred to Ministers for decision. Should that happen, we shall of course consider most carefully any suggestions that have been made by the local health authority.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that the community services in south Manchester and the surrounding districts are already grossly overstrained and that it is almost inescapable that some cuts will have to be made because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said, the district has not been able to balance its books without making cuts? If ward closures take place, it will inevitably mean that the community services, which are already overstrained, will fail in their primary target of serving patient needs.

Mr. Patten: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for those in the area, but he is speculating about what might happen should decisions be taken at some time in the future. The district health authority must face its present problems of overspending, and face them hard. While saying that, I applaud the approach of the district health authority in looking first to the needs of patients and not to the funding of empty or unnecessary beds, particularly with the changes in the pattern of medical care, when many people wish to go home at weekends and even more people wish to have day surgery rather than stay in hospital for many days unnecessarily.

NHS (Government Support)

Mr. Sumberg: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the level of Government support for the National Health Service in the next financial year.

Mr. Fowler: As I recently announced, the Government plan to spend next year a total of £17 billion on the National Health Service in Great Britain. This represents an increase of £700 million on the anticipated expenditure for 1984–85 and is £200 million more than that previously announced in the 1984 expenditure White Paper. The funds allocated to health authorities will be increased by 1 per cent. over and above what would be required merely to keep pace with the forecast rate of inflation. These figures demonstrate the reality of the Government's continuing commitment to the Health Service.

Mr. Sumberg: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is increasing public concern that the NHS does not have sufficient funds and resources to combat and publicise the danger of patients contracting AIDS as a result of blood transfusions? If that is so, will he assure the House that sufficient funds and resources will be made available to the NHS?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, I think that I can give that assurance. The Government are taking a number of actions. We are seeking to become self-sufficient in Factor 8 so that imports are no longer required. I very much hope that that will be done by 1986. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health has issued leaflets. Perhaps, most important of all, we are seeking ways to test blood donations. No screening test has yet been developed, but a pilot trial will be started in London in the next few weeks.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: However much the Minister may seek to mislead the House and the country with statistics, does he agree that his statistics presume a pay increase of only 3 per cent. for nurses and ancillary staff? Does he admit, therefore, that, despite all the


Government's protestations, those people have suffered, are suffering and will continue to suffer a substantial reduction in their standard of living?

Mr. Fowler: Untypically, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are not a fair commentary on our plans. We are providing an extra £700 million cash in Great Britain. If pay is settled at the 3 per cent. which the Government think reasonable, there will be 2 per cent. cash left for growth within the Health Service. Health authorities have cash budgets and they must plan within them. In that respect, there is no difference between the Health Service and any other service or industry.

Mrs. Jill Knight: When issuing statements and information documents about these important matters, will my right hon. Friend avoid using phrases, such as "relative technical limitations of the input volume methodology", which confuse rather than clarify and hamper the excellent story which the Government have to tell about their record in the Health Service?

Mr. Fowler: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance on that. To the best of my knowledge, I have never issued anything remotely similar to that in my name, and I shall certainly see to it that none of my ministerial team does so either.

Mr. Eastham: The Minister insists on giving percentage figures. Do those assessments include the ever-increasing number of pensioners, which is currently growing by about 100,000 per year, thus adding considerably to the burden on the Health Service?

Mr. Fowler: Of course, we accept that, and that is why we are providing more cash for the Health Service. It is no use the hon. Gentleman making dismissive gestures. We are providing 5·5 per cent. more cash for the Health Service next year than was provided this year. One of our main reasons for doing that is the very argument which the hon. Gentleman put forward. His comments signally fail to undermine the Government's commitment to the Health Service.

Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that although his proposals on generic prescribing will save the NHS money, there is no doubt about the efficacy of the alternative drugs and that those who have suggested that we are moving towards having one Health Service for the rich and another for the poor are guilty of mischievous nonsense?

Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Although there is some laughter on the Opposition Benches, I had thought that that was the policy of the Opposition, too.

Benefits

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider extending to all the long-term unemployed the high long-term rates of benefit as recommended by the Social Security Advisory Committee.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): As I told the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 12 November, the necessary resources of about £500 million are not available to implement this

proposal, which in any case raises wider questions about the supplementary benefit scheme more properly considered in the current social security review.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that one of the main areas of concern connected with unemployment at present is the growth of long-term unemployment? Does he further accept that the longer that people are unemployed, the greater the expenses that they incur, because their belongings wear out? Should not the longterm unemployed be given a fair deal, should not resources be made available to meet their requirements, and should not the supplementary benefit system be changed so that assistance can be made available by way of unemployment benefit?

Mr. Newton: That view has been put forward by many who have given evidence to the supplementary benefit review, so of course it is a view that we shall consider.

Mr. Galley: In view of the present abuses, will the Government consider, in consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee, the possibility of new arrangements for mortgage interest payments for the longterm unemployed and others to be made direct to the lender, not to the borrower?

Mr. Newton: I note what my hon Friend says. As I have said before, I am conscious of the concern expressed about the particular instance. However, I hope that, when pressing the point as a generality, my hon. Friend will accept that many people might well feel that it should not be an automatic consequence of becoming unemployed that their building society should immediately be informed by the local social security office.

Mr. Kirkwood: If cost is a reason for not extending the long-term rate of benefit to all claimants, will the Minister consider the SSAC's compromise arrangement of introducing it first to those claimants with dependent children?

Mr. Newton: That is another view that has been put forward to the supplementary benefit review. I answer with some hesitation only because those who say that this should be a priority rarely say which other matters should be given less priority in its place, which is the necessary concomitant.

Mr. Meacher: Given that the cost of extending the benefit to the long-term unemployed would be about £500 million a year, how can the Government justify refusing that benefit to the unemployed when they have this year handed out almost exactly the same sum—£520 million— to the very rich by halving stamp duty on stock exchange transactions and abolishing the unearned income surcharge? Is this not the most blatant example yet of having one law for the rich and another for the poor and the unemployed?

Mr. Newton: The most effective action that the Government can take to help the long-term unemployed is to improve the prospects for employment. [Interruption.] It seems extraordinary to me that the Labour party should apparently believe that unemployment problems do not involve increasing the prospects for employment, but it may explain some of the strange remarks made by Opposition Members.

Mr. Wareing: The Government are not doing it.

Mr. Newton: Our aim is to improve prospects for employment. Part of that policy is to stimulate and encourage investment, and we are doing that with considerable success.

Joint Finance Agreements

Mr. O'Brien: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider the current financial problems facing local authorities with joint finance agreements with health authorities; and if he will consult the Association of Directors of Social Services and area health administrators on the matter.

Mr. John Patten: The working group on joint planning, which we have set up with the National Association of Health Authorities and the local authority associations, will be looking at the arrangements for transferring resources between health and local authorities. The group is expected to complete work next spring and we shall consult health and local authority interests on its findings.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister take into consideration the serious circumstances facing local authorities whose resources are being cut while there are demands for extra resources for the elderly, the mentally ill and the disabled? Will he examine the tapering system and ensure that services that are in being will not be lost to communities because of penalties imposed on local authorities by the Department of the Environment?

Mr. Patten: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's constructive attitude. By saying that, I do not wish to do him any personal political harm. However, some of the problems facing local authorities are of their own making. One has only to consider the high disparity of unit costs in, for example, the provision of local authority accommodation for elderly people to see that. Of course, we shall consider the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. We are looking forward to receiving advice in the spring from the body to which I have referred.

Mr. Sims: I know that my hon. Friend will welcome schemes, such as that in my constituency, by which mentally handicapped people are being moved from institutions to small homes. Will he bear in mind that, if the scheme is successful, the next step will be for those people to go into individual accommodation, but that they will still need the services of, for example, social workers? Will he therefore persuade our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that local authorities have the funds to maintain an adequate number of social workers to continue the process?

Mr. Patten: We greatly admire the work being done in my hon. Friend's constituency involving the movement of those who suffer mental handicap back into the community and, we hope soon, into flats and sheltered accommodation of their own. Local authorities have the power to protect the especially vulnerable. Many local authorities, Labour as much as Conservative, have done exactly that recently by good and prudent housekeeping within the substantial sums of money that they already get.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Minister confirm, or deny, the hardship caused by his joint financing alteration to the local authority, the health authority and the mentally ill and severely frail people who live in Salford?

Mr. Patten: As we have increased expenditure on joint finance by 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979, I do not know how anyone can speak of hardship.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is well aware of the policy pursued by successive Governments of transferring mentally ill and handicapped people from hospitals into the community. Will he assure the House that the Government will provide adequate funds to ensure that the facilities, the services and the care that were available to such people while they were in hospital are available to them when they move into the community?

Mr. Patten: We are already providing at least £100 million this year for joint finance schemes. In addition, we are making it possible for health authorities, with patients who go back into the community, to transfer permanently money which will not count against targets for local authorities. We also have several centrally funded initiatives, such as the care and community initiative, at a cost of £16·5 million, and the helping carers to care initiative, which costs £10 million.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm, or deny, that his Department issued guidance to regional health authorities, including that in Yorkshire, to alter the rules in calculating bed norms, thus substituting commercial criteria for technically derived criteria, with the result that there is a serious under-estimation of the need for beds in future, especially for the elderly?

Mr. Patten: The modern Health Service does not have bed norms. It is concerned not with beds but with treating patients. We are treating more patients than have ever been treated in the history of the National Health Service. The hon. Gentleman could play a constructive role in his area where, I am told by local people, joint planning between health authorities and the social services department is not going well. He should do all that he can to smooth the growth of an effective joint planning procedure such as we have in several authorities elsewhere in his area.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I accept that partial abatement from penalty during the period of joint financing has helped, but does the Minister agree that there is a growing reluctance among local authorities to embark on joint financing because of the improbability of being able to cope with it under rate-capping when the taper is finished? That is especially so in local authority areas where the need is greatest, as the possibility of rate-capping there is highest.

Mr. Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic courtesy in welcoming what we have been able to do, which he thinks has helped. Of course I appreciate the tapering problems which some authorities face, but we have no evidence that joint finance is not being taken up, because a record sum of money is being taken up—about 95 per cent. of the money available to local authorities.

Maternity Services Advisory Committee

Mr. Galley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the publication of the third report from the Maternity Services Advisory Committee.

Mr. John Patten: The committee's report should be ready early in the new year.

Mr. Galley: I acknowledge the valuable work of the MSAC and the growing improvements in maternity services, particularly in perinatal mortality rates, but does my hon. Friend agree that further research needs to be done into cot deaths? What steps is he prepared to take to monitor the situation more closely and to arrange more research into this harrowing topic?

Mr. Patten: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the MSAC, which has so far produced two excellent reports. We are looking forward to its third report in the new year. A considerable amount of work is going on at present into the problems of cot deaths, and Professor Knoweloen from the University of Sheffield will shortly be reporting on the results of a trial examination of these problems that has been going on for the last seven years. We look forward to receiving that shortly in the new year.

Mrs. Renée Short: Assuming that the advisory committee will reinforce the demands of the Select Committee for better standards of care for the distressed newborn, does the Minister accept that his Department's responsibility is to ensure that those standards are enforced? That is different from recommending. Is that not particularly so, given that in social class 4 in the west midlands the perinatal death rate of distressed babies rose from 13·1 in 1981 to 13·3 in 1982, which is way above the national average?

Mr. Patten: We have drawn the attention of all regional and district health authorities to the recommendations of the MSAC. I know that the hon. Lady shares my pleasure that we have seen recent record reductions in perinatal mortality in this country.

National Insurance Contributions

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about the level of the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

Mr. Fowler: Since 1 August 1984, eight letters have been received about the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

Mr. Smith: Is it right that anyone earning as little as £35·50 a week should suffer any deductions from pay? Is my hon. Friend aware of the bunching that is now taking place below the earnings limit and the gap that is opening up between this and the income tax threshold? As part of his social security reviews, will he look at ways in which the limit might be increased?

Mr. Fowler: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are already looking at the structure of national insurance, including the lower and upper earnings limits. Like him, I am concerned about the cliff-edge effect of national insurance, where just below £34 one pays no national insurance and just above £34 one pays £3 contributions. We are examining that and shall certainly try to improve it.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Secretary of State accept that apart from the concern which he has expressed—and I welcome his words—the Opposition are also concerned that the upper earnings limit is so low? That makes it a regressive tax, as, the wealthier one is, once one gets beyond the upper earnings limit there is no contribution at

all. Will he therefore confirm that perhaps in this respect the Government will be at least as harsh to the rich as to the poor?

Mr. Fowler: I have just told my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) that we are looking at both the lower and upper earnings limits. That is part of the work of the reviews, and when they are published I shall seek to respond to the hon. Lady.

"Another Story"

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what study he has made of the book "Another Story," by Mrs. Jean Carr, a copy of which has been sent to him, relating to his Department's treatment of relatives of service men killed in the Falkland Islands and of service men maimed in the conflict, and their families.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I read the book with interest and duly noted its comments.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister accept as fact the description by Mrs. Jean Carr of his Department's handling of the case of Mrs. Jane Keoghane, a pregnant widow of a Welsh guardsman, which is described on page 53? If so, what will he do about it?

Mr. Whitney: I do not accept that description as fair in the case of Mrs. Keoghane, or in any of the other cases. A total of 225 cases were dealt with as a result of the Falklands war, and there was reason for some improvement in some of them. However, I believe that overall the Department's conduct was exemplary.

Mr. Dickens: How was my hon. Friend able to take seriously the sincerity behind the question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who time and time again has pointed his finger at the British task force with regard to the sinking of the Belgrano, which undoubtedly saved hundreds of British lives?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question relates to Mrs. Jean Can's book.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that there is strong feeling that the widow to whom my hon. Friend referred was shabbily treated? Is he satisfied that service men who must leave the forces because of a deterioration in their medical condition are fully informed of the benefits available to them when they leave?

Mr. Whitney: I do not believe that there is any justification for the view that Mrs. Keoghane has been shabbily treated. At one stage she was in receipt of double benefit, but there was no question of asking her to repay it—quite justifiably. All the benefits available to service men as a result of the Falklands war are well known, and the Ministry of Defence and my Department have taken action to ensure that that knowledge is widespread.

Later—

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your recollection that on Question No. 9 you intervened in the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). Would it be in order for me to say that I have never criticised service men? My criticisms have been related to politicians. Am I to understand that you asked the hon. Member to withdraw the remark? In the hubbub that followed, did he do so?

Mr. Speaker: I do not recollect that there was any particular problem with that question. I think that the integrity of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is beyond dispute in this House.

National Health Service

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of the gross domestic product was spent on the National Health Service in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the percentage in 1978.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The United Kingdom spent 5·6 per cent. of the gross domestic product on the National Health Service in 1983. The corresponding figure for 1978 was 4·8 per cent.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those figures show clearly that the Government are giving the National Health Service a higher priority than did the Labour Government?

Mr. Clarke: They certainly do. They show where it counts most. Last year, hospitals treated 3·5 million more cases than were treated during the last year of the Labour Government.

Mr. Latham: In making these financial decisions, is my right hon. and learned Friend trying to persuade his Department away from the idea that all mothers-to-be must have their babies born in central areas? Maternity units are extremely important in rural areas.

Mr. Clarke: A great deal of clinical advice is that it is safer to have babies born where there is ready access to emergency provisions. However, the atmosphere in many small maternity units is much preferred by mothers-to-be and their families. Therefore, we try to balance those two considerations when difficult cases come before Ministers.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that the most recent Health Service workers' settlement has left the West Cumberland health district with a bill of £175,000 to pay? The only way that it can find the money is by cutting back on the maintenance of hospital buildings. Does the Minister agree that that is a false economy? Is not the only solution to the problem for the Government next year to provide our health district with additional moneys to secure the future of our hospital?

Mr. Clarke: With respect, the hon. Gentleman's health district and others were provided with substantial extra funds to cover the additional cost of the pay settlement. The Government met about 80 per cent. of it by increasing cash limits. That leaves a contribution to be made in other ways. However, all local authorities are identifying cost improvement programmes and ways of increasing their efficiency, and the sums being saved by eliminating waste and improving performance easily cover any additional cost of the pay settlement and also provide for growth in patient services. I do not know enough about the details of West Cumbria, but I hope that none of our districts is resorting to false economies when real ones can be made.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that under the Government's policy on the National Health Service, which he calls expansion, 193 hospitals have been closed and only 35 opened? If that is expansion, will he confirm

that next year there will be a contraction when, for the first time, he forces health authorities to cover the full cost of pay rises above 3 per cent. for Health Service workers? Does he expect Health Service workers, who are among the lowest paid, to subsidise the NHS by taking a real pay cut when thousands of rich people are being given massive tax handouts?

Mr. Clarke: We should all bear in mind the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) about the figures that we use. The figures for hospitals opening and closing are amongst the silliest which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) ever uses. He knows that we close small, old hospitals and open bigger new hospitals. The total number of new beds provided under this Government is almost equal to that of the total number of beds lost from the older hospitals. What is more important—as patients' stay in hospital are shorter—is that we treat more patients. The Health Service is not in the business of conserving buildings or providing empty beds; it is for treating patients, and 3½ million more patients each year are being treated than before. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about next year's pay settlement. We plan for a cash increase of 5½ per cent. on top of this year's health spending. Out of that, of course the Health Service has to find its pay costs, just as every other major service has to.

Computers

Mr. Franks: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what initiatives are being taken by his Department to promote the greater use of computers to help general practitioners.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We are evaluating the use of microcomputers by 140 GPs in a scheme funded by my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology. The study is looking at the benefits of computers in patient care and practice management, and its results— to be published late next year— will show how useful computers really are to GPs. We are also preparing a factual report on about 20 different GP computer systems to help GPs who are interested in computers to make an informed choice.

Mr. Franks: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he accept that the pooling of computerised information about patients suffering from diseases such as cancer and multiple sclerosis will speed up tremendously the research into a cure for those diseases? Will he consider making capital grants available for that specific purpose?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is one of the great potential advantages of computerising general practice. We are not, of course, inhibiting GPs' choice of computers, but it would be helpful if all the systems were compatible so that we could examine the choice. We have already made substantial capital funds available to the scheme which I described— the so-called "Micros for GPs Scheme" funded by the Department of Trade and Industry. We shall consider further ways of encouraging the worthwhile spread of computers.

Mr. Dobson: All that said, will the Minister confirm that the DHSS reimburses GPs for work on manual card index systems but does not reimburse them if they want to buy a computer?

Mr. Clarke: That is an extremely simplified version of the system, and I shall not give a long and elaborate one. GPs are partly reimbursed through the present expenses system for buying computers. We do not reimburse them in full. We must leave the GPs to make some judgments of their own about how much a computer is worth to their practices.

Death Grant

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce measures to raise the death grant to at least £300; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton: We have been continuing to give consideration to our policy towards the death grant in the light of the response to the consultative document published in March 1982, which revealed no clear public consensus. This consideration will now be carried forward within the context of the wider re-examination of social security which my right hon. Friend has set in hand.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not a fact that if the £30 death grant had been uprated in the same way as the Government are keen to uprate supplementary benefits to attack strikers, it would have gone up to something well over £300 in real terms? Will he also bear in mind that on 5 February 1982 when my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) brought in a Bill which was talked out by the Government, one of those hon. Members who took part in the campaign was made a Whip for his services in talking out the Bill? No consultation of any kind has been taken into account. If the Government can find £4,500 million to smash the NUM, why can they not find sufficient money to pay for a decent funeral?

Mr. Newton: I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to accuse the rest of us of trying to talk out his question. To increase the death grant to the level that the hon. Gentleman suggests would take almost exactly the amount of money that would be required to do what one of his hon. Friends was urging earlier—to extend the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed with children. I know what my priority would be.

Mr. Yeo: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support for a substantial increase in the death grant to restore its real value, but that it would be acceptable to have it means-tested so that those who died leaving even a relatively small capital sum would not be eligible for it?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will not expect me to pre-empt the result of my hon. Friend's review in this respect any more than in any others, but he has made a sensible point.

Wrightington Hospital (Children's Ward)

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be able to make a further statement about the proposed closure of the children's ward at Wrightington hospital.

Mr. John Patten: As my hon. Friend knows, I have written to the regional health authority seeking certain assurances following his earlier representations. I shall write to him again shortly.

Mr. Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he recognise that the decision about the proposed closure has taken a great deal of time, and that many people around the area are concerned about the future of this children's ward? Does he also recognise the importance of retaining the team together, so that the facility for treating children suffering from arthritis is maintained in the area?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate of this cause, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover). I hope that my hon. Friend recognises, by the care that we have shown for this small group of children, that we care very much for those, however small in number, who are disadvantaged.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Alan Howarth: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that miners in Yorkshire are returning to work because, in their own words, they are ashamed of intimidation and sickened by violence? Should not that unequivocal condemnation of violence be endorsed by every hon. Member? Is not the refusal by the president of the National Union of Mineworkers to call off the violence a sign of the unscrupulous means which the Left is willing to use to get its own way?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and it would be as well if violence were condemned by every member of the NUM and every member of the TUC, but the acid test—

Mr. Skinner: Acid test?

The Prime Minister: The acid test is whether the violence will be stopped. It could be stopped by the leadership of the NUM if it chose to do so. The other acid test is whether the TUC guidelines will be followed

Mr. Hattersley: Has the Prime Minister had any discussion today about those Swiss and American bankers and brokers who are buying forward to obtain British Telecom shares, and offering 40 per cent. above the part issue price, even before the issue is closed? Can she give an estimate of how much will be lost to the Exchequer by this most recent example of the bungling of a flotation by her Government?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Exchequer will have its money by virtue of the underwriting. The right hon. Gentleman cannot stand the success of the British Telecom flotation.

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Lady either does not understand the law or is careless of its application. The practice that I have described is illegal, or would be illegal if it were operated by British speculators. Why does she condone, and even boast about, the practice, which would be illegal were it operated within the ambit of the British courts?

The Prime Minister: If a practice is illegal in the British courts it is dealt with totally and utterly impartially, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware. I return to what I said. The right hon. Gentleman does not want more extensive share ownership and therefore he condemns the privatisation of BT.

Mr. Nicholls: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that disarmament talks are to be resumed is a complete vindication of the defence policies of the West? Is she therefore surprised that CND, at its latest annual conference, responded by refusing even to criticise the USSR, and in that way was simply pursuing policies which bring aid and comfort to this country's potential enemies?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the Soviet Union has been brought back to the negotiating table by NATO's firmness in implementing its dual track decision. I welcome the agreement to go back to the negotiating table and I hope that it will be successful. It would not be successful had we all gone for unilateral disarmament. I well remember Mr. Andropov's statement:
Let no one expect unilateral disarmament from us. We are not a naive people.

Dr. Owen: Does the Prime Minister recall the 1950 election manifesto on which she first fought? Does she remember the words:
We regard the maintenance of full employment as the first aim of a Conservative Government."?
Does she still subscribe to those words? If she did, would she not be better placed to speak for the majority of the British people?

The Prime Minister: Governments should do everything that they possibly can to achieve the financial framework to maximise employment in Britain. At the same time, they must see that industries keep abreast of technological advance, as this Government are doing, and not extinguish the very enterprise from which jobs will come. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have the same policy. He usually tries to imitate Conservative Governments.

Mr. Allen McKay: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 27 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McKay: Does the Prime Minister realise that her utterances and those of her right hon. and hon. Friends on the coal industry dispute, this most damaging of disputes, are, to say the least, less helpful than they could be? Does she not realise that instead of dividing and being divisive she should now use her power and influence to bring the people to the negotiating table? In addition, in the interests

of the mining communities, will she set in motion a public inquiry into events on the picket lines? In short, will she act like a Prime Minister and a leader, or does she just not care?

The Prime Minister: I think that I probably care more about the future of the coal industry than many of those in the leadership of the NUM. There are very good jobs available for miners if they wish to return to work. It is the leadership of the NUM which, without consulting the miners, is deliberately making them suffer privations, and making some of them suffer violence and intimidation, which has totally and utterly split the NUM. That is the fault of the leadership of the NUM.

Viscount Cranborne: During the course of her busy day, will my right hon. Friend take time to consider the proposition that to cut the overseas services of the BBC is as short-sighted as the threat to cut the Endurance before the Falklands war?

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. I believe that all organisations, including the external services of the BBC, have a duty to get full value for money and to run their services efficiently. I believe that that is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has seen to it will happen.

Mr. Winnick: In view of the attack on the Government's economic policies last week by the Secretary of State for Energy, is it not surprising that he should wish to remain one of her Ministers? Or does the Prime Minister believe, as many hon. Members do, that the right hon. Gentleman likes office far too much to act on his supposed convictions over the misery of mass unemployment?

The Prime Minister: I have my right hon. Friend's speech with me. Will the hon. Gentleman say precisely what he regards as an attack on the Government? I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have read the speech.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend scotch the silly rumour which has appeared in today's press and elsewhere that the Government are intent on attacking Conservative families by in some way taxing or means-testing child benefit? Does she not agree that, though it may be well merited to give more money to the poorest families in society, the best source of those funds is not the remainder of the family sector?

The Prime Minister: There are many rumours about. I cannot say what will be the result of the four inquiries which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is conducting. There are many rumours about, directed at trying to stop the very things that those inquiries are trying to consider, to ensure justice both for the taxpayer and for those in receipt of social security benefit. We are determined to conduct those inquiries well and thoroughly, and the results will be brought before the House in due time.

Mr. Maginnis: In the light of the tragic death today of Deputy High Commissioner Norris in Bombay and the alltoo-frequent acts of terrorism from which we all suffer,


would it not be intolerable if Yasser Arafat were allowed to visit the United Kingdom? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he will not be granted a visa to do so?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be a statement after Question Time on the assassination in Bombay. However, I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in expressing our deepest sympathy for the widow and family of Mr. Percy Norris, our deputy high commissioner, who died as a result of this morning's tragedy.
As far as I am aware, no application for a visa for Mr. Arafat has yet been received, but if one is received it will be considered in the normal way.

Mr. Janner: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentlemen to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Janner: Will the Prime Minister please consider the anxiety and problems caused to local authorities by the transport of Chevaline and other nuclear missiles through their areas without prior warning having been given to the police or fire authorities? In view of the persistent refusal of Ministers to give the House any reassurances whatever, will she personally inquire into the matter, with particular regard to what would happen in the horrific event of an accident?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the decision to go ahead with the Chevaline modernisation of Polaris was confirmed by the Labour Government, so he cannot be against the modernisation of Polaris. From his question, I understand that he is not against necessary movements, but only against them being made without warning having been given to the local police. I shall inquire about the matter that he has raised.

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of her colleagues on her perceptive analysis last night of the danger facing democracy in this country? When she is able to return to her theme of the Fascist Left, will she point out that the vicious intimidation of miners, their wives and children has seen no equal since Oswald Mosley's blackshirts brought fear to the homes of Jews throughout the East End?

The Prime Minister: I agree that the intimidation and violence that we have seen is a blot on the face of Britain and has done our reputation abroad and our trade untold damage. I sometimes wonder whether that is the object of the Labour party, which supports the strike.

Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ashton: Will the Prime Minister find time today to tell us when she last visited Moscow and negotiated a nuclear arms reduction with the Russians?

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what Mr. Andropov said—I would not be so naive.

Portsoy

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Pime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Portsoy.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join the rest of the House in agreeing that the communiqu? issued this morning in Brussels with regard to the lifting of restrictions against the people of Gibraltar—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has asked the wrong supplementary question, as his main question refers to Portsoy.

Engagements

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is naive indeed to imagine that because people say that their missiles are not targeted on a certain country they cannot then be retargeted at short notice? Consequently, is not an agreement on such lines meaningless and worthless?

The Prime Minister: I agree that such an agreement is totally worthless. I understand that a similar offer was made in 1978.

Mr. Frank Cook: In her recent statement at the Guildhall the Prime Minister said clearly that the good work, loyalty and allegiance of the miners would not be forgotten. Will she take the opportunity this afternoon to give a similar assurance about the good work, loyalty and allegiance displayed by those men and women who, 30 or 35 years ago, offered good work, loyalty and allegiance on Monte Bello, Maralinga, Christmas and Malden Islands? If she will give that assurance, will she tell us clearly in what way it will be manifested?

The Prime Minister: I hope that this Government never forget the good work of those who have served their country well and truly. I cannot be more specific than that.

Deputy High Commissioner, Bombay (Assassination)

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the murder of our Deputy High Commissioner in Bombay.
Shortly before 0800 local time, or 0230 GMT, three shots were fired at our Deputy High Commissioner in Bombay, Percy Norris, on his way to his office. He was hit in the temple and the heart, and died in hospital at about 0845 local time. I am sure that the whole House will wish to register its deepest sympathy for and condolences to Mrs. Norris and her family.
We understand that no one has yet claimed responsibility for this cowardly and senseless murder. The House will be aware of reports that a man of European appearance was observed on the scene at the time of the killing, but I must emphasise that it is premature to speculate on who may have been responsible or what their motive may have been. The Indian police are making every effort to capture the assailant and are co-operating closely with our High Commission.
Upon learning of the assassination, the Indian Government immediately provided extra security for British diplomatic premises, including British Council offices. The Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, has expressed his deep distress at the tragedy and his condolences to Mr. Norris's family in a message to the Prime Minister.
Security arrangements for British officials serving overseas are a high priority and are kept under constant review in the light of the known threat. We take this matter very seriously. The House will forgive me if I cannot go into details, for obvious reasons. I can, however, say that the security of our Deputy High Commission in Bombay was inspected last year, and the recommendations have been carried out. More recently, the Indian authorities agreed to provide additional measures of their own. But I emphasise that it is not possible for diplomats, any more than politicians, to carry out their functions properly and to be assured of absolute security at all times.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, this appalling crime demonstrates once again the danger faced by members of the Diplomatic Service, along with others in public life, from acts of terrorism around the world, which we all strongly condemn.

Mr. George Robertson: The whole House shares the sense of horror and outrage at the brutal and senseless assassination of Mr. Percy Norris. I associate the Opposition with the sincere condolences expressed to Mrs. Norris and her family. This desperate murder underlines the increasing dangers faced by our diplomats, even in friendly countries. It should remind us all that security for our missions and representatives overseas must be appropriately tight.
It is suggested that there might be a connection between the murder and the press coverage in Britain of celebrations in Southall after Mrs. Gandhi's death. Have the Indian people been made sufficiently aware of the fact that such reports are the sign of a free press and not an endorsement of such behaviour by the British people?
Is the Minister satisfied that the protection of our missions from possible terrorist threats will not be in any way compromised by any cut in the Foreign Office budget? Will the Minister make it clear that no terrorists, whether here in Britain or abroad, will persuade this country and its Parliament to alter their friendship and long-standing links with the people of India?

Mr. Luce: I am sure that Mr. Norris's family will be extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the condolences he has expressed. Whatever the adjustments in the expenditure of the Foreign Office, which were announced last week, security remains the highest possible priority. Expenditure on security for the protection of diplomats in various parts of the world has increased considerably during the past few months and years, and, as far as we can see, that expenditure will continue to increase, because there are special dangers to diplomats in various parts of the world.
On the question of the views on Mrs. Gandhi's assassination which have been expressed in this country both in the press and by, I think, a tiny minority of Sikhs, I believe that the Government and people of India will be in no doubt of the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am sure that her statements echo the views of the majority of people in this country. Those who have been rejoicing at Mrs. Gandhi's death are only a tiny minority. We utterly and totally condemn those views.
There was at Mrs. Gandhi's funeral the strongest possible demonstration on behalf of all hon. Members of the great friendship between this country and the people of India. The Indian authorities have reacted solidly and sharply to the serious incident that took place this morning.

Sir Peter Blaker: Conservative Members wish to be associated with my hon. Friend's expressions of sympathy to Mr. Norris's family and his tribute to the foreign service in the risks its officers run in carrying out their duties. Is the House right in interpreting my hon. Friend's answer to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) as an assurance that, whatever the security measures deemed to be necessary, they will not be constrained by cost considerations anywhere in the world where they are required?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I give him a strong assurance that the highest possible priority will be given to the security of our diplomats in whatever part of the world they may be.

Mr. James Callaghan: I wish to associate myself with the expressions of shock at the criminal murder of Mr. Percy Norris. Only three weeks ago, on the day of Mrs. Gandhi's assassination, I arrived in Bombay to be met by Mr. Percy Norris and his wife. They assured me and took immediate care of my security and safety. They regarded themselves as being responsible for my safety until the time I left. Mr. Norris was a most unassuming and capable officer. Mr. and Mrs. Norris had arrived in Bombay shortly before my visit. They were both looking forward eagerly to serving this country in India, as they did. Mrs. Norris especially told me of her enthusiasm for her new task. I and I am sure the whole House would like to express our deep regret and sorrow to Mrs. Norris. I hope that she will be given strength during this period of trial.
I should like also to express our sympathy to Mr. Norris's driver, who had driven Mr. Norris and his predecessors for 20 years. I express also sympathy to the staff of the Deputy High Commissioner to whom Mr. Norris's death must have come as a great shock.

Mr. Luce: I am sure that Mrs. Norris and her family and the whole Diplomatic Service will be moved by the right hon. Gentleman's tribute and will be grateful to him.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: I associate myself with the tributes paid to the Norris family. Does not this sad episode illustrate the dangers to which the foreign service officials are exposed and give the lie to the stories of diplomatic lassitude and luxury which some newspapers attempt to spread? Was Bombay considered to be a dangerous posting?

Mr. Luce: People are becoming increasingly aware of the difficulties and dangers that many diplomats face in some parts of the world. We remember the recent serious incident involving the British ambassador in Beirut.
The Indian authorities and ourselves have kept in close touch about any security threat. We believe that we were as aware as we could be, following the regular assessments, and I can add nothing more about that.

Dr. David Owen: Liberal and SDP Members extend their sympathy to the wife of Mr. Norris and to the Diplomatic Service, which must be grieving at the loss of a dedicated servant. Does the Minister agree that, despite that loss and the feelings aroused in the House, nothing must be said or done to call into question or doubt the capacity of India to pull together and to survive the shattering blow that it has recently experienced? Above all, nothing should be said in this country to cause any suspicion in India that we have anything but confidence in the Indian Government and people to overcome the problems of sectarian violence and religious and other rivalries and disputes. Despite our loss, that must be the main feeling coming out of the House.

Mr. Luce: I am sure that the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman are those of the vast majority of hon. Members and of the British people. After this morning's tragedy, the Indian authorities extended to us the utmost co-operation in seeking out the assailants.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As one who, like you, Mr. Speaker, holds Indo-British relations dear, may I be associated with the sentiments that have been expressed? Will my hon. Friend take pains to ensure that no inflammatory statements are made by members of Indian minorities in this country, because if such statements are relayed to India they may cause grievous

problems and perhaps put British lives at risk? I accept what my hon. Friend said about security, but does he agree that, although expenditure on security has been increased, the nature of the threat has increased many times more?

Mr. Luce: I assure my hon. Friend that we constantly review and monitor the threat to our diplomats in all parts of the world, and will continue to do so.
On my hon. Friend's first question, all that I can do is to express the hope that no members of the British community will express views that will exacerbate the tensions that exist following the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi and this morning's tragic murder. I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said is an appeal which can go out from the House to the British people.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: In the light of the tragic and ghastly murder this morning, and in view of the understandable need to increase expenditure on security measures in defence of our staffs abroad, was not the Foreign Secretary's statement on the Foreign Office budget the other day all the more deplorable?

Mr. Luce: No. I have already made it plain in answer to an earlier question that the adjustments to the budget that were announced last week will have no effect on the priority that we give to security. I stress again that expenditure on security has increased, is increasing and, as long as we think it necessary, will continue to increase.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation from this country was received in Bombay two years ago with tremendous warmth and friendship? We should be in no doubt that this shocking and dreadful atrocity does not reflect the views of most people in Bombay or in the rest of India.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the horror that has occurred is as shocking for the people of Bombay and India as it is for us.

Mr. Mark Hughes: We welcome the fact that security is to be extended to British Council activities in India, but how is it to be paid for when the budget has been reduced?

Mr. Luce: The security of British Council and, obviously, of diplomatic premises is the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That remains the case.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the succeeding business. It is an Opposition Day and I have a large number of applications to take part in the debate.

HMS Conqueror (Officer's Diary)

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help in relation to the somewhat surprising referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions of the publication in The Observer of the diary of a naval officer of HMS Conqueror. As I have here a copy of that same diary, which I have used in relation to questions in the House and public statements, can you advise me whether I am also liable to be referred to the DPP, or whether I am immune as a Member of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that it has never been the practice of the Chair to give advice to hon. Members from the Chair. If the hon. Member will write to me about the matter, I shall look into it and see what I can do to help him.

Mr. Foulkes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. My question relates to the responsibility, which you take very seriously, of protecting the interests of Members. As the diary was published some months ago in The Guardian and elsewhere, there is a suspicion that the action has been taken now deliberately to gag Members of this House. Can you help us in relation to that?

Mr. Speaker: This is the first that I have heard about the hon. Member having a copy of the diary. As I have just said to him, if he will write to me and let me have a look at this, I shall gladly do so and see what I can do to help him.

SUPPLY

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Natural Environment and National Heritage

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the widespread concern about the alarming deterioration of the natural environment; supports the conclusions of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, and the National Heritage Memorial Fund, together with numerous voluntary organisations, which call for urgent legislation, greater government involvement and funding in order to protect the natural environment and national heritage; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to respond immediately with action and legislation.
The motion is based not simply on the views and conclusions of the Labour party but on a wide-ranging collection of views and conclusions of statutory bodies, Select Committees of this House and of another place, non-governmental organisations and interest groups which reflect and represent the views of millions of people in Britain. Their conclusions, like ours, are based on a massive burden of well-documented evidence which has been accumulated in some cases in spite of official commercial and industrial attempts to prevent its disclosure.
We have provided time for the debate because of the seriousness of the many threats to our environment and heritage and because of the continued feet-dragging reluctance of the Government to respond adequately to the scale and nature of those threats.
The Government are failing at national and international level to match up to the challenge. While it is clear and agreed that only co-ordinated international action can succeed in tackling, for example, questions of world poverty, acid rain and the law of the sea, the Conservative Government display mean-minded narrowness of vision in the face of mounting criticism and pressure for action.
In 1983 alone, 15 million children died in the developing world as a consequence of hunger and malnutrition. It was as if the combined under-five populations of Britain, France, Italy, Spain and the Federal Republic of Germany had been wiped out in a single year. Yet, faced with a crisis in Ethiopia, likely to be repeated in Chad and elsewhere, the Government cut overseas aid.
After years of negotiation, discussion and debate on the law of the sea at the United Nations, Britain displays a dog-in-the-manger attitude to overwhelming international opinion, and hangs on to the coat-tails of President Reagan and American industrial lobbies. Will the Minister tell the House of the Government's intentions with respect to the convention? We believe that Britain should sign for a variety of well documented and very important reasons. The closing date is 9 December 1984, and the House is entitled to know what the Governmen intend to do.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: What has this to do with the motion?

Dr. Cunningham: We in the Labour party want action on national and international levels: that is what it has to do with the motion, if the hon. Gentleman is interested.


We want policy initiatives and action to be taken through five general areas. National and international intervention in development is essential. A free market economy does not work to protect the environment. We must tackle the institutions, Government Departments and public bodies and establish a freedom of information Act. A major review of the operations and environmental impact of all energy industries, particularly the nuclear industry, is essential. We must act with more urgency and vigour to protect the countryside from the increasingly malign impact of agriculture. The Government should review the industrial opportunities arising from environmental protection policies and devise a strategy to protect British industry and create jobs.
Of course, action to protect, sustain and enhance the environment poses a fundamental dilemma for Conservatives, particularly those who have nailed their reputations to a market forces view of the world. Environmental protection, conservation and pollution prevention and control demand intervention. This is a major difference between the Conservative Government and the Labour party. We believe that without intervention in economic and industrial development, without proper systematic planning and control over the use of resources, land, water, energy and the marine environment, the problems of environmental and ecological damage are unlikely to be arrested, let alone eliminated.
For us in the Labour party, that argument has always been a tenet of our approach at national and international level. It is nowhere more apposite than in dealing with environmental policy. The very history of industrialisation should be the only lesson from which we need to learn, that market forces are no respecters of resource use or the environment. Surely it is ironic, particularly for Conservative Members, that the common agricultural policy, responsible as it is for such major threats to the countryside, should benefit from massive intervention while the pan-European problems of acidification do not apparently qualify for such an approach.
The development of ecology as a science of man and nature has done and will continue to do us all a massive service if we heed the lessons and note the warnings. However, I do not agree, nor does the Labour party accept, that we can or should abandon development either for ourselves or for the developing world. Improved economic performance is, on the contrary, a prerequisite to the solution of the problems that we face. To argue otherwise is simply to betray millions of people, to condemn them to squalor, poverty, disease, malnutrition, ignorance, illiteracy and death.
The Labour party in government would bring new urgency to the problems of urban renewal, especially in the inner cities and conurbations, new housing, refurbishment programmes, clearance of dereliction and, most important, the freedom for local authorities to get on with the job. That would ease pressures on land and help to protect the green belt. We are committed to greater support for public transport, the development of which would make a significant contribution to reducing pollution and congestion.
Energy conservation policy should be upgraded and given a new sense of purpose. The energy industries are massive consumers of land, financial resources and raw materials. On taking office, the Government abandoned energy conservation policy, and energy supply industries continue to dominate thinking about energy policy and its

pollution consequences. Energy consumption must be systematically examined and, where possible, reduced so as to conserve resources and to improve energy productivity in order to reduce consumer costs.
I believe that opposition to a new environment policy is institutionalised in this country in Government Departments, public bodies, business and commerce. We must tackle the institutions and public bodies. Every aspect of public policy should have a planned environmental conservation input from the outset. In conjunction with this, we require a freedom of information Act in the public interest so that the fullest possible debate on the facts can take place.
The Department of the Environment should be strengthened. I take this opportunity to express our great regret at the Secretary of State's unfortunate accident and to wish him a speedy and complete recovery. The Department should be strengthened in terms of personnel and upgraded in terms of governmental influence. The damage caused by staff cuts in the Department must be reversed. The Department of the Environment seems to have become entirely defensive about its role and responsibilities in environmental protection and is being driven by EEC legislation. We want Britain to take initiatives and to lead the case for improved environment policies, but the Department of the Environment seems singularly unable to deal with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on anything like equal terms. The closing of the National Water Council and the exclusion of the public and press from the meetings of regional water authorities were retrograde and regrettable actions by the Conservative Administration. There is also scope for major improvements in the operations of the National Coal Board, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the oil and nuclear industries.
The Government have been laggard in their approach to the problems of acid rain so seriously spotlighted by the tenth report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. It is not good enough to hide behind research and the need for concentrated international action, important though that is. It is estimated that 80 per cent. of acid precipitation in Britain is generated here, so it is a self-inflicted wound. We support the commissioning of a full national survey of the impact of this, more promotion of fluidised bed combustion systems, more action on the scrubbing of flue gases and a target date for significant real reductions in emissions rather than reductions resulting from the decline of our industrial economy.
In the civil nuclear industry we call for the abandonment of the operation of the Official Secrets Acts so as to facilitate more open debate. We also require a target date for an end to nuclear discharges into the marine environment with a step-by-step reduction in discharge authorisation until that target is reached. I have asked Ministers about this before, but it is clear that they cannot define in any sensible terms what the principle of ALARA is supposed to be. The Department has declined to give me a definition in the House. In reality, the principle is meaningless.
We also want a restriction of the personnel involved in NIREX and in the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and the inclusion of more representation of trade unions, elected local authority members and environmental organisations. We seek a complete review of their proposals and a reconsideration of the financing of major national public inquiries on this


and other issues of contention. In addition, the boards of all public bodies involved in civil nuclear power should be strengthened by the inclusion of a director with specific responsibilities for environmental policy matters.
I represent an area in which the nuclear industry operates and I well understand the public concern about that industry. I believe that our proposals are the minimum required to ensure that the development of nuclear power does not outstrip public acceptance and understanding of what is involved.
In addition, the Government should abandon the NIREX proposals to store waste at Billingham and Elston, and institute a complete review of waste disposal policy, including dumping at sea, about which I understand the Holliday committee is shortly to report. We should return to the policy of the Labour Government's 1977 White Paper on nuclear power and the environment, and ensure that the creation of wastes from nuclear activity is minimised— great pressure should be brought on the industry to bring that about—that waste management problems are resolved before any major expansion of nuclear power is undertaken, and that the handling and treatment of waste should be carried out with due regard to environmental circumstances. However, I have no doubt, nor does the Labour party conference, that the nuclear generation of electricity is here to stay and will always form part of any national energy policy.
The Government suffered an embarrasing defeat on their green belt proposals and are now trying to circumvent their promises to the House and to many of their own supporters. That is evident from the approach to the county of Avon's structure plan, where the Secretary of State proposes housing expansion in areas expressly rejected by the council, in its planning strategy. That is a serious example of an attempt by the Government to get out of their promises to the House.
By comparison with the energy industries, and historically, agriculture has always been presented environmentally as a benign industry. That is not true in the modern world. We must take action to halt the overuse and abuse of pesticides and fetilisers. Damage being done to flora and fauna, topsoil and water courses is serious and increasing.
The physical destruction of heaths, moorland, marshes, meadows, wetlands, deciduous woods, hedgerows and sites of special scientific interest should simply be halted. To quote the 1983 annual report of the Nature Conservancy Council again:
There is just about enough habitat left to ensure continuity of Britain's wild plants and animals—if it is conserved. The danger is that, if it is not wholeheartedly protected now, in ten years time it will be too late.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has failed and cannot combat the massive and often malign impact of the common agricultural policy of the British countryside. We regret and condemn the Government's failure to take advantage of our repeated offers to facilitate a Bill to amend that Act, and to provide Government time to do so. A private Member's Bill is simply not an adequate substitute for proper Government action.
On the protection of the landscape, the Wildlife and Countryside Act never really got off the ground, because it was grafted on to a system of Government policies and financial instruments working in the opposite direction

—against conservation rather than for it. The Government's proposed conservation amendment to the EEC's agriculture structures regulations would cover, at most, only 4 per cent. of the countryside. It is an insufficient response to the call of environmentalists of all parties for integration of environmental considerations into agriculture policy across the board.
First, the Act cannot succeed unless it forms part of a wider reform of agriculture policy, as well as being fundamentally amended itself. In the latter respect, the Government's intention to close the three-month loophole is not sufficient.
Secondly, another serious weakness in the arrangements to protect landscapes and the wider countryside is the absence of any requirement for farmers outside national parks and sites of special scientific interest to get prior approval for operations subsidised by the Ministry of Agriculture. The Act should be amended now so that the pre-notification arrangements currently applying in national parks should be extended to cover the country as a whole, and especially areas designated as areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Thirdly, if conservation policies are to have any effect in the countryside, there must be a realistic system of reserve back-up controls and order-making powers to be operated by local authorities. The most damning indictment of the Act's failure is that at least 245 SSIs have been damaged or destroyed since the Act was passed. Although the Government have offered to close the loopholes in sections 28 and 29, the fact remains that a maximum of 15 SSIs and proposed sites have been damaged or destroyed because of those loopholes. In other words, 230 sites have had their conservation interest damaged, diminished or wiped out because of other weaknesses in the Act. Similar losses will be prevented only if the emphasis on voluntary restraint is replaced by effective control. The Nature Conservancy Council and the national park authorities must have some effective stop order allowing them to prevent damaging developments from occurring on nationally important sites.

Mr. W. Benyon: On what information does the hon. Gentleman base the charge about the number of SSSIs being destroyed? The figure is questioned strongly in certain quarters, where it is believed that it is totally inaccurate.

Dr. Cunningham: My figure is based on published information.
The compensation system on which the Act's protective mechanisms are based has rightly come in for a great deal of criticism from many quarters, including the Back Benches on both sides of the House. While some form of compensation is necessary, and the idea is supported by most parties, it cannot be right that there is no discretionary element in payment, that agricultural subsidies are included in the payments for profits lost, and that landowners can get compensation simply by threatening to destroy a site. It would be perfectly possible to make compensation payments discretionary in the same way as agricultural capital grants are discretionary now, and for the agricultural subsidy element to be removed from compensation calculations.
For effective conservation in the countryside, it is essential to encourage farmers to look after the natural features of their land. We therefore advocate the changes


in the compensation system that I have outlined. Money should go to farmers who need it rather than to those who are in a position to demand it, and the Ministry of Agriculture capital grant aid rules should be changed so that payments are available for farmers who carry out positive conservation work such as coppicing broadleaved woodlands, clearing bracken and scrub, managing water courses with conservation in mind, dry stone walling—all these are matters with which I am familiar in Copeland— maintaining hedgerows with conservation in mind, and fencing in order to allow natural regeneration.
The land drainage activities undertaken by water authorities and internal drainage boards have been among the most controversial conservation issues of the past five years, for four reasons. Land drainage operations threaten some of England's finest remaining wetland landscapes, including Halvergate marshes and other marshes throughout the Norfolk broads and the Somerset levels. The principal justification for the operations is agricultural production— usually of cereals, which are in surplus anyway.
The economic justifications used in support of these schemes for obtaining grant aid from the Ministry of up to 50 per cent. of the cost have never been disclosed, despite repeated requests by conservationists and hon. Members to see any cost-benefit analyses supporting the schemes. The water authorities and the Ministry have always refused to publish the information.
The new duty laid on water authorities and internal drainage boards by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to
further conservation of landscapes and wildlife in their drainage operations
has made no noticeable difference in the number and type of schemes being brought forward. What precisely did the Government mean or intend when they referred in the Act to "further conservation"?
These are specific criticisms of the Government's record on these issues and two further points are worth making. The Government announced in 1982 their intention to undertake a review of land drainage. The interdepartmental review was referred to extensively in the House of Lords debate on 8 March 1983 which is reported in Hansard from column 131. At column 139 Lord Skelmersdale said on behalf of the Government that the discussion paper would be published "shortly." That was 20 months ago and we are still waiting. In June 1984, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave assurances that the review would be published in the summer of 1984. That was recorded in Hansard for 7 June at column 429. The review has still not appeared. The delay in its publication has not been explained and meanwhile precious wetland landscapes and wildlife sites are being threatened.
The Government's Food and Environment Protection Bill has been strongly criticised as avoiding key issues such as the disclosure of information, control of spray drift in aerial spraying and warning labels on food. Again the proposals lack bite and determination to control the abuse of pesticides which is crucial to wildlife and plant life.
At most, sites of special scientific interest will protect less than 10 per cent. of the British countryside. Much wildlife lives outside them and, even in the latter, maintenance of populations of many birds depends on there being healthy populations elsewhere. For most people, contact with wildlife and enjoyment of the

countryside depend not on designated sites but on ordinary countryside areas. Agriculture and forestry occupy 89 per cent. of Britain and are the two most significant activities that affect the countryside and its wildlife. Their postwar impact has been enormous and, for some habitats and species, simply catastrophic. "Nature Conservation in Britain", which is published, by the Nature Conservancy Council, quantifies the losses—95 per cent. of lowland herb-rich hay meadows, 80 per cent. of chalk and limestone grassland, 40 per cent. of lowland heath, 30 to 50 per cent. of ancient woods and about 50 per cent. of marshland. Unquantified but equally tragic has been the loss of wildlife from farms and woodland due not to the destruction of habitat but to the use of pesticides and cropping systems that are inimical to their survival.
There are many other important issues. The Royal Commission was right to have doubts about the Government's intentions about implementation by 1986 of part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. As I have said before, the Minister should make a clear statement of intent on this matter. The cost of acting to control pollution is often raised, but such investment frequently results in economic gain, market opportunities and creation of jobs, as NEI Engineering has recently made clear in a note which was sent to hon. Members. The dumping of waste at sea, the slow-down in public investment in sewage treatment and the transport across national boundaries of toxic wastes all need urgent attention. A new working relationship between the Government, local government and voluntary bodies should be established to develop momentum on environmental protection. Ironically, in this as in other matters, abolition of the metropolitan counties will be a backward step because they have taken a lead on issues such as green belt policy, land reclamation and archaeology, to name but three important topics in the conservation debate.
The impact of people on their environment is increasing and will continue to increase as mobility and demand for sport, recreation and leisure increase. They will continue to grow, as will pressure on the countryside in and outside national parks. Government funding of the development of sport and leisure facilities must be increased to take account of that and to prevent the over-use and damage that result from too many people having too little access to the areas and facilities that they require.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No., I am coming to the end of my speech.
I should like to quote from the Nature Conservancy Council's 1980 annual report. It says:
The next 18 months could well determine the future for nature conservation in many parts of the country. There are at least some glimmers of hope in the greater public awareness and an Act of Parliament which with minor amendment must bring great benefits. The greatest imponderable of all, however, remains whether the financial structures of agriculture can be reformed in a way that befriends nature conservation. Until this happens we remain gravely concerned and there is little time to set matters right.
There is no evidence that the Government have the will, the sense of urgency or the determination to tackle, let alone resolve, these problems. That is why we shall be voting on these issues tonight.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
recognises the care and attention paid by Her Majesty's Government to the natural environment and the national heritage; pays tribute to the good progress made by the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission and the National Heritage Memorial Fund; approves of the encouragement given to the many voluntary agencies in these areas; and notes the increased resources Her Majesty's Government propose to devote to protecting the environment and the heritage in 1985–86.
We wholeheartedly welcome the debate. The Opposition have rather helpfully allowed us half of one of their days to focus on two areas of policy on which the Government's record is excellent and to which the Labour party's contribution, with, of course, some honourable exceptions in the case of a handful of Back Benchers, is rather pitiful. It was the late Anthony Crosland who said that Labour was:
glaringly weak on the environment, in which the National Executive Committee appears to take no interest".
Nothing has changed and I can only sympathise with the view of the poor old Bury, North constituency Labour party that
Conference views with concern the public ignorance of the ecological commitment of the Labour Party".
I am afraid that, in spite of the eloquent speech made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the public will be none the wiser. All we have heard today is an ancient and familiar political sound—the noise of a skilful politician climbing on a bandwagon. The Opposition motion is one of the worst drafted that I have ever seen put before the House.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: You have had your speech, Jack.

Hon. Members: Disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I associate Christian names with friendliness.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as he has reduced the debate to a personal level and says that we are trying to climb on a bandwagon. Perhaps I might refer him to a letter that is being circulated by two Conservative Members and which was sent to Opposition Members today. It concerns a bypass in Devon and says:
We believe this attempt to gag environmental organisations could do damage to our future relations with such groups and could certainly affect our attempt to strengthen the green image which our Party has been at pains to develop.
Who is jumping on bandwagons?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman's intervention explains why I shall not give way to him again—it was rather feeble. The motion is badly drafted. There is nothing in common between the various reports that have been produced by all of these bodies. The motion is simply a list of everyone the Labour party could think of.
None the less, it would be churlish not to welcome the hon. Gentleman aboard. I am grateful for what he said

about my right hon. Friend, who I am sure would have been happy to welcome the hon. Gentleman on board in person. I extend that welcome to the small number of his colleagues who are present. The hon. Gentleman has reasonably good support on the Opposition Front Bench—the rival Front Bench has since departed—but the Government have attracted twice as many of their Back Benchers as the Labour party. That should not obscure the different approaches that our two parties adopt to this area of policy, as to others.
The hon. Member for Copeland was perfectly fair when he said that the Labour party has a completely different approach. Our approach, both to the natural environment and to our artistic and cultural heritage—of which the hon. Gentleman said not a word— starts from the assumption that the role of the state, vital though it is, is in the end ancillary to that of the private citizen.
Our beautiful countryside was the product not of state planners in the first place but of the million-fold decisions of private owners. The state certainly has a vital role as a moderator of change, conciliator and sometimes arbitrator of conflicting interests, and sometimes, in critical situations, as the deployer of long-stop powers. This is so in the two huge areas of the nation's life which we are now discussing. As much in the arts and the manmade heritage as in the natural environment, it is not state committees and bureaucracies that create things, but recalcitrant artists and individuals. The state must tread warily if it is not to extinguish the very pluralism and diversity that a healthy artistic culture needs.
Labour is bound to start from the opposite position. Even from so moderate a spokesman as the hon. Member for Copeland, we cannot miss the wishful hankerings for even more state planning, state control, ministeries of culture, and all the rest. Therefore, the debate is timely if it reminds us that a Conservative Government are not, and should not be, simply in the business of an endless competition with the Opposition to see who can create the biggest and best state bureaucracies. Where the state should act, it should do so efficiently. It should deploy the right resources and listen to the best advice. These things we have done and will continue to do, but all that will be as nothing if the basic framework within which farmers and landowners in the countryside, and artists, architects, patrons and owners in our cultural life, go about their business is wrong.
That is why our fundamental approach to countryside matters is based on a twofold reform of the framework within which farmers and conservationists live together. In fact, they are often the same people, as the huge growth of the fanning and wildlife advisory groups show.
First, the Wildlife and Countryside Act establishes for the first time a system whereby we can show farmers and others that we are willing to put resources into conservation in the countryside and to accept that in certain important areas conservation is a valid objective of public policy alongside farming. Those who do not believe that any policy is sufficiently virile unless it deploys compulsion in all directions hope that the approach embodied in the Act will fail. Unfortunately, events have proved them wrong.
Since the Act was passed we have seen the growth of a new consensus among farmers and conservationists, issuing in welcome policy statements from the National Farmers Union, and the Country Landowners Association as well as from the Nature Conservancy Council, the


Countryside Commission and others. The atmosphere has been transformed, and no one involved in conservation doubts it. The reason is crucially to do with the way in which it has been shown that, under the Act, conflicts can be resolved and agreement sought. It is absurd to hail the newly-emerging consensus on countryside matters and then deny that the most important Act for decades on the subject has not played a crucial role in the growth of that consensus. Of course it has.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), as well as some of the Minister's hon. Friends such as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), spent 100 hours or more in Committee on the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Many of those on hours were spent discussing MAFF money in relation to conservation. After the time which has elapsed, will the Minister identify the amount of MAFF money that has gone into conservation, or is no such figure available?

Mr. Waldegrave: The principal budgetary burden remains with my Department. It is right that it should do so. I shall shortly come on to ways in which we should seek to divert and direct CAP money into conservation objectives. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is an important objective.

Mr. Peter Hardy: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is an expert in these matters, but I must continue. The hon. Member for Copeland made quite a long speech and I do not want to take as long.
Our critics said that we would not provide the resources or that they would be absurdly large or impossible to provide. To their irritation we have provided the money. There has been £7 million more this year for the Nature Conservancy Council, an increase of 45 per cent., and a 75 per cent. real increase since 1979. There will be a further £2 million for the Countryside Commission next year, a 23 per cent. increase since 1982–83. Here I pay tribute to William Wilkinson of the NCC and Sir Derek Barber of the Countryside Commission and their staffs who are making a reality of the policy we all want. I do not believe that sums such as this—£38 million between the two bodies— are absurdly large, given that they represent the commitment of this House and the Government to the conservation of the countryside and our natural habitats.
I said that the Government's approach to the reconciliation of interests in the countryside had two aspects. The first is the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The second is the explicit attempt for the first time to put into EC law, with the agricultural structure directive amendment, powers to use CAP money for conservation objectives. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has taken this initiative in Brussels, and it has been widely welcomed by conservationists and farmers.
The House might like to know that in support of this initiative I have raised the subject of the interaction of agriculture and the environment with Commissioner Narjes of the Environment Council, and I shall be tabling a memorandum at the next Council of Ministers meeting on 6 December to follow this through.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate my wishing to continue. The danger of such wide-ranging debates is that Ministers speak for far too long. My Department has so many relevant programmmes, domestic and international, about which I would be delighted to tell the House, but the patience of the House might not necessarily match my enthusiasm. I shall, for example, leave the general subject of water pollution to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, who has the whole matter well under control.
Before I turn to the other great subject of the debate, which unfortunately slipped the attention of the hon. Member for Copeland, I should like to answer some of the specific points he raised. He asked about the law of the sea convention and rightly said that we must come to a decision by 9 December. That is so. We shall come to a decision, but I cannot announce it today. He was right to say that the deadline has not yet been reached.
I was glad to hear his important reaffirmation of bipartisan support for nuclear power generation. This is another area of good sense in which the hon. Gentleman is increasingly a lone figure in his party. We shall study the Holliday report carefully. At first glance it is an interesting and useful report, and we shall come back to the House in due course.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about immediate prospects of amendment to the Wildlife and Countryside Act. He rightly referred to the Nature Conservancy Council, which considers that only minor amendment is needed. I believe that there is a consensus in the House for a limited change—principally to block the three-month loophole— but for no more at present. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are considering whether the original route proposed—a private Member's Bill—can meet this need.
Air pollution and endangered species also come within my responsibility. On air pollution, acid deposition and motor car exhaust pollution dominate the current debate. But this debate is not timely for setting out the Government's position. It would be discourteous to the Select Committee if we tried to pre-empt our response to it. That should be given in a very few days, most likely next week. There is no secret in the fact that the Government see great problems for Britain in any further dramatic diminution of the 40 per cent. drop in sulphur emissions that has already been achieved. We are studying carefully the European Community Commission's two stage approach to car exhausts, and see some hope for progress. We must not allow any slippage in the recently agreed date for the removal of lead from petrol. We shall, therefore, seek to keep progress on lead separate from that on other vehicle pollutants. That will minimise the danger of slippage.
However, I take this opportunity to say that the Government's concern about endangered species, which is represented by our vigorous action when we had the presidency of the European Council, has not diminished. On the contrary, where we think there is illegal trade, 'we shall pursue it rigorously. My Department is convening an action seminar of international enforcement officers in Bristol in two weeks' time to devise ways of making enforcement even more effective.
I am especially worried about the illegal trade in birds of prey, through which large profits can be made and which has possible connections with the international drug trade. I have already placed a moratorium on imports and


exports of gyr falcons and peregrines. We are imposing a moratorium on all movements of all diurnal birds of prey between the United Kingdom and Germany on the advice of our enforcement team.
Many hon. Members will have received letters urging more action regarding swans, which die from the ingestion of fishermen's lead weights. Swans are not an endangered species, but we take the matter exceedingly seriously and have made it clear that if an effective voluntary agreement cannot be reached we shall consider legislation.
Our fundamental approach to the arts and built heritage is not philosophically dissimilar from our approach to the natural environment. There is a proper role for the state, but state domination would be death. That is why the independence of the Arts Council in specious arguments over accountability is so vital, and why the independence, made real by the method of its funding, of the National Heritage Memorial Fund is so important.
As usual, critics call for more compulsion, for example to ban the export of pictures, which in most cases would not be here except for the existence of free trade in the past. It is interesting to see what the NHMF says in its annual report. It states:
This country had never benefited from trade protectionism … our export control system is an enlightened one which steers a careful course between the desire to retain in this country what we most cherish and unwillingness to interfere with the rights of owners.
That is exactly the balance that we seek.
Earlier this year we established two further arm's length agencies, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission under Lord Montagu, and the Trustees of the Tower of London Armouries under Lord De L'Isle, to reinvigorate our management and presentation of some of the best monuments, historic houses and some of the world's oldest collection of arms and armour. They have started well and we have made the necessary money available— more than £50 million next year for the HBMC.
The last word on the provision of resources for the conservation of our cultural heritage should lie with the independent NHMF's annual report. It states:
We have good reason for confidence, not only in this Government's commitment to the objectives of conservation, but in their willingness to provide adequate funds to achieve these objectives.
We are grateful for that tribute, which is certainly the truth.
I am aware that in the past there has been some disappointment about the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, some of which is relevant to the debate. During our last debate on this subject, some Select Committee members underestimated their effect on policy-making. It is certainly true that the recommendation about revised ministerial responsibility was not accepted. However, an important step was taken in the direction urged by the Committee through the return of the Arts Minister to the Cabinet. I am sure that that is right.
I will not list all the items where we accepted the Select Committee's advice, for example, business sponsorship, information, trading activities of museums and galleries. However, on one important matter where the Government have not immediately accepted the recommendations—

tax changes—it does not mean that the subject is dead and buried. Work will continue to see whether present measures can be further improved.
The Government have a fine record and will work hard to improve it further. We have passed Acts, set up institutions and provided money to back them, where necessary. Plenty more remains to be done in future, and, as our record shows, we shall do it.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister welcomed the debate but provided little evidence to justify the claim that the Conservative party deserves respect from those interested in conservation and related subjects. He seemed to excuse the Government's pathetic record by suggesting that they must tread warily to avoid reducing the advantage which may accrue from individual endeavour. That sort of advantage has brought some of our rural areas in the past 30 years near to desolation. If there is desolation as a result of the people whom the Minister wishes to protect, in future many individuals will never get the inspiration which past generations of Britons have enjoyed.
The Minister prayed in aid the developing consensus between the forester, the farmer and the conservationist. I welcome that consensus, and I may have made a small contribution to achieving it. The Minister must realise that those who do not approve and are not part of the consensus do not care for their colleagues' views and wreak havoc. While the Government fail to take action, those havoc wreakers continue to destroy our countryside and the heritage which we have an obligation to treasure. Those havoc wreakers will applaud the Government. They are imbued with the Government's monetarist policies and may continue to be protected by them.
It is no good the Minister paying well-deserved tribute to Mr. Wilkinson and his colleagues in public agencies with responsibility. The Minister did not respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who said that the Nature Conservancy Council's report clearly stated that the next 18 months would be critical for many areas of British conservation. There has been no firm commitment from the Government; merely a gesture and a welcome ban on exports of diurnal birds. That is welcome, but the position is far more critical than the Government's complacency seems to suggest.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: How does the hon. Gentleman square the circle when he considers that the Government have given an additional £7 million to the Nature Conservancy Council just for those purposes?

Mr. Hardy: For some years, the hon. Gentleman has claimed a commitment to and interest in conservation. If he believes that the £7 million screwed from the Government as a contribution to conservation will allow people to respect the Conservative party's commitment to the cause, he is greatly mistaken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland was right to start the debate with a broad approach. Conservation must be based not on a local, ecological evaluation, but on the planet as a whole. We see the topsoil of the globe, which is its principal resource, being destroyed, deserts extending by millions of acres a year, the world's fresh water polluted and the seas overfished. Quite rightly,


Opposition Members and hon. Members to the Left of the Conservative party are beginning to marvel at the way that the Conservative party is sticking its head into the increasing areas of sand.
The topsoil is being removed in Africa. That has enormous implications for western Europe. We are determined to ensure that the Government, in serving a proper international commitment, recognise the need for action in this country. At the moment, it is fair to describe the Conservative party's position as niggardly in provision and lethargic in response. It is no good the Minister saying that there will be one amendment to the three-month loophole. He could have closed it last year. He will recall that in the spring I presented a Bill which was found to be technically deficient only two days before I hoped it would be passed on the nod in July. It would have closed that loophole, and important areas which have been destroyed and disfigured since then would have continued to benefit future generations.
Too many areas of great importance have been destroyed or disfigured. Too many areas which are not classified as sites of special scientific interest, but which are of enormous local importance and which have given pleasure to many people throughout the length and breadth of our island, are being destroyed. That is especially true of hedgerows.
The Minister will recall that the Government blocked a Bill that I introduced designed to protect important and significant hedgerows in Great Britain, despite the fact that it was supported by the consensus to which the Minister has referred. We then discovered that thousands of miles of hedgerows had been uprooted and destroyed with public support by the use of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. That money was devoted to destroying the hedgerows which the law said should remain in perpetuity. But the Government's response then showed some slight imagination. They decided to cancel the remaining grants for the destruction of hedgerows and to give people grants to establish new ones.
There are many farmers on the Conservative Benches. A few of them, who are in the House at the moment, will recognise that a newly-planted hedgerow, whilst welcome, is of far less ecological benefit than one which may have taken 2,000 years to develop. Thousands of miles of hedgerow, some of which is 2,000 years old, have been destroyed and the taxpayer has funded that destruction, and this imaginative, conservation-caring Government blocked an initiative supported by Members of all parties to resolve the problem.
I want to make a brief plea for hardwoods. The Forestry Commission seems to be suggesting that we have just as much hardwood in this country as we had 30 or 40 years ago, but the Minister will recall that the definition of hardwood being used today is different from that which was used in the 1940s.
I believe that the Forestry Commission is inaccurate and that the NCC's assessment, as quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, that since the war we have lost between 30 and 50 per cent. of our traditional woodland is more accurate. It is essential that something be done. For example, we must ensure the proper management of our woodlands. We need to ensure that small woodlands, which are increasingly vulnerable, are protected. At present, people can take 30 cu m of timber from a wood every quarter. That is all right in a large wood, but it could destroy a small copse within a relatively

short time. We need to see a greater degree of imagination used in the management of our woodland resources than the Minister and his colleagues currently show.
There is the issue of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I am glad that the hor.. Member for Dumfries (Sir Hector Monro) is in the Chamber, because he was present in Berne when the Berne convention was signed I was present as chairman of the relevant Council of Europe Sub-Committee. I welcomed his comments at Berne when he said that the Government would be first and foremost in their response to and implementation of this convention of wildlife and the habitat. They were not the first, and they may be the most niggardly in western Europe.
Part I is admirable, although I want to see some improvement in the protection of the badger. The conservation world has demonstrated that that is necessary. On the whole, part I is good because it does not cost the Government anything, but when we come to protect not the wild creatures but the habitat upon which they depend, we are far more parsimonious. The Government seem to want to take the credit for that which they can do without spending money. They are rot prepared, even with the gesture of the extra £7 million referred to by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), to spend more. The Minister cannot claim that that is a satisfactory way to protect the habitat which the Government are committed to preserve.
We do not trust the Government far. I hope that within the next few months the Council of Europe— I still maintain the chairmanship of the necessary committee—will monitor the position. It will study every member state to see how each one has implemented the commitment into which it entered under the Berne convention.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was supposed to enshrine and embody that commitment. We are disappointed with it. If the Minister wishes to see some credit accrue to the United Kingdom, I trust that he will ensure that when my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) presents his Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill, he will be allowed to embody within it those matters which will be reasonable and consistent with achieving what the hon. Member for Dumfries claimed.
The Government are inflicting large-scale unemployment on the country. At the same time as creating enforced leisure, they must provide for that leisure which will otherwise accrue. They will fail dismally unless they recognise that a major part of the meaning and wealth of leisure for our country lies in the countryside. The millions of people who are unemployed and the millions who are retired or work shorter hours are entitled to demand that the countryside which they wish to enjoy should remain worth enjoying.
The Government's record is deplorable. I hope that the Minister's commitment, and his claim that the Conservative party deserves a green mantle, will be fulfilled. At the moment, the claim is preposterous.

Sir Hector Monro: I welcome the debate. I should declare an interest as a member of the Nature Conservancy Council, the council of the National Trust for Scotland and a number of other conservation bodies. I am somewhat involved at the sharp end but I speak for myself.


I am astonished by the motion. We all have a common objective and it is out of place to cause acrimony when conservation cries out for harmony.
We need a constructive approach to evolution in the countryside and to the whole of the heritage. We have an excellent record, and I support my hon. Friend the Minister. The Opposition must have had a few twinges of conscience when they put down this motion. I have been 20 years in the House and I have the record of the legislation relating to conservation. The Opposition have produced only one significant piece of legislation other than a private Member's Bill, which was presented by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). The legislation set up the Countryside Commission in 1969. I speak about Scotland as well as England and Wales, and the Countryside Commission has been the most splendid organisation with an especially gifted chairman. He has the feel of the countryside and the experience to understand economic problems. He will need all his skills as the demand for leisure space places more and more pressure upon the countryside.
The Countryside Commission publication, "A Better Future for the Uplands", was a notable contribution to conservation. The only other piece of Government legislation tabled by the Labour party during those 20 years was the ill-fated Countryside Bill of January 1979. We were mercifully saved from its provisions by the 1979 general election. The Bill had it all wrong, and I am delighted that our policy of voluntary agreement has successfully overtaken the Labour idea of compulsion for Exmoor which is what the Bill dealt with. That is all that the Labour party did in the period of maximum destruction of the countryside during the 1970s, with the corn explosion and its repercussions on hedgerows, trees and wetlands. During all that time the Labour party did nothing and yet here it is putting forward a singularly inappropriate motion.
The Government have had a different approach. To touch for a moment on the heritage, when I was in the Department of the Environment I was involved with the setting up of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which has been a great success. The Government have made fiscal changes. There have been changes in capital taxation, income tax concessions, zero-rated VAT. The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission has been set up and, of course, the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill is presently going through the House.
Our policies are going well. Of course, all historic houses are expensive to maintain and one should never underestimate owners' problems and we should give them the help that they need. I pay tribute to the Government and to the National Trust for the part that they play in maintaining the heritage of our great country houses that mean so much to the people of this country and the tourists who visit it.
The hon. Member for Wentworth referred to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We started from scratch in 1979 with a major environmental Bill, bringing in, as he mentioned, part I, dealing with wildlife, of the important European directive. The Bill's proceedings were long and contentious and if we had had a little more time, we might have been able to pick up the incorrect emphasis, or even an omission in sections 28 and 29 in part II, dealing with management agreements and SSSIs. I should

be happier if we were rectifying these important points through a Government Bill, because so much can happen to a private Member's Bill, even if there is good will on both sides of the House to see it through to enactment.
It would have been easy today to have got the measure through the House with the corrections to which I have referred, because opinion has changed so dramatically during the past few years, partly, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, because of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. There has been a notable swing towards conservation, not only through the National Farmers Union and the farmers themselves but through bodies such as the Country Landowners Association, and the Scottish Landowners Federation and because of the distinct change in the attitude of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food towards conservation. It now has an adviser, and one can see in the recent press release on capital grants how it is thinking all the time in terms of conservation. That is a major step forward and one that is most important.
It is a basic argument in dealing with conservation and the countryside that agriculture is profitable, and consequently the rural economy comes into consideration when we are dealing with conservation. We must look after the things that matter in the countryside, such as the rural schools, the village halls, the buses and so on. They should all be developed within a proper economic attitude to the countryside, as this helps conservation. I am glad that the Ministry is now looking towards supporting conservation and helping with the farm and wildlife advisory groups and through assistance from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service which now has a distinctive conservation role.
Meanwhile, the Nature Conservancy Council has pressed on with its notification and renotification procedures for SSSIs and with making management agreements. It is learning all the time through experience and welcomes the addition of million announced by the Government. That must not be underestimated by Labour Members. It is specifically to help with the SSSIs and management agreements, and comes on top of the significant budget that the NCC has in the first place. All organisations such as the NCC would welcome more money, but, within the constraints of public expenditure, the Government's recent response was most significant.
The relationship between the NCC, the farmers and the landowners is getting closer, although there is some way to go. The farmers now see management agreements not as negative but as positive arrangements that give them advice and assistance and can produce something valuable for conservation. There is no wish in the NCC to see SSSIs as areas of sterilised land. Far from it. There is a great deal that can be done in the SSSIs about which agricultural interests need have no fear.
We have a common purpose, and thousands of SSSIs are under no threat. We need some give and take in the countryside, and an acceptance that sometimes country folk see things a little differently from those who come from the town. It is no more so than in the world of country sports. We have to give credit to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Game Conservancy and the British Field Sports Society for what they do for habitat and wildlife conservation. They have a right to pursue their interests without interference. We must watch out for EEC directives that may not necessarily be in the best interests of the country.
Many conservation groups do an excellent job, while others sometimes leave me in despair. Some appear to judge their success by outrageous headlines and sometimes, sadly, by illegal action. As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, one often sees headlines saying things like, "Failure of the Wildlife and Countryside Act." That is an inaccurate and foolish statement. The Act has not failed, but all Acts on the scale of this one need time to show their full results. For instance, we have made singularly little progress over marine nature reserves. It will take time to bring to fruition all the things that we set out to do a few years ago.
The countryside is what it is largely because man made it that way. Man provided the frame and the gilding for a beautiful picture, and although we may lose a few SSSIs, new areas of conservation are developing every day. I sometimes wish that those who criticise what is happening in the countryside so much would get into a light aeroplane and fly around England, Scotland and Wales at about 1,000 feet, and look down at the ground to see what lovely countryside we have. It is far from being the desolate area described by the hon. Member for Wentworth and his friends.
I sometimes have a wry smile about bulls on footpaths. I was heavily criticised about that at the time the Bill was being debated but the results that were predicted have not materialised.
I stress again the importance of the NCC. It has published its policy in "Nature Conservation in Great Britain". That contains an analysis of the problems and a statement for action, plus plans for its development under the new corporate plan. The Government have made money available and I know of no case where lack of funds has been a limiting factor in dealing with conservation. That does not mean to say that those who have land that is possibly under threat should think that they can pull wool over the eyes of the NCC and get money from a soft touch. They will not.
The Act was a catalyst for action. It made people think about conservation, and much that has happened in conservation has happened since the Act's arrival. There is no doubt that attitudes have changed. Of course the Act's provisions can be improved, but so can the NCC, the Countryside Commission, and organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which can improve and develop their policies year by year.
The countryside has taken a millenium to evolve. Change cannot take place overnight. It takes time and constructive discussion, but we should never be complacent. Nevertheless, we are going the right way. The pace towards conservation is accelerating every day. There is room for everybody to enjoy the countryside, its facilities and its beauties in happiness, but let us all work together and not in the disharmony proposed by the Opposition.

Mr. James Wallace: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the opportunity to debate these important subjects. Earlier, there was some discussion about who was climbing on to whose bandwagon. It will no doubt be recognised that many of the issues raised in a debate such as this have been campaigned for by my right hon. and hon. Friends for many years, particularly when it was much less fashionable to do so. We have recognised that over many years, national success can be measured

not only by quantifying terms such as the GNP, but by the increasing importance of the quality of our lives, of the air, of the purity of the waterways and the way in which we exercise the stewardship of our national resources and heritage.
We welcome a wide-ranging debate which allows us to discuss issues as wide as the delays experienced in protecting and establishing rights of way and the transport of radioactive waste by land and sea. I endorse what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said about the law of the sea convention. He said that in the remaining time available to us we should sign that convention as an act of faith towards those in the developing nations, with particular reference to the mineral resources referred to in that convention.
If the hallmark of the motion is breadth, the feature of the Government's amendment is complacency. There are some signs that the Government are becoming a little more responsive to environmental issues— slightly green at the edges—but they have a long way to go before they merit the self-congratulatory plaudits of the amendment.
Let me give the Government a practical suggestion. They may take advice from the Royal Commission if they wish. If adopted, it would show that the Government had some willingness to take environmental matters seriously. I see no reason why, when Bills are published, there should not be an environmental impact statement attached to it, if it is appropriate:. For example, the Local Government Bill has a statement on its financial consequences and its effect on public service manpower. The Government should give guidance to highlight those issues of significance to our heritage and environment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Local government legislation may not appear to have environmental consequences, but I hope that hon. Members will accept that t proposed abolition of the GLC, with its historic buildings department which has an enormously good reputation, and its replacement by a quango will have such consequences. We should ensure that such Bills take into account the consequences to the environment, of which people may not otherwise be aware.

Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is not immediately apparent from the Local Government Bill that there are such consequences. For example, the body which puts up blue plaques around London may lose the coherent approach which enables it to identify worthwhile items of heritage in London.
The amendment omits any reference to the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. That is regrettable when one has regard to the complex volume of work which the Royal Commission has undertaken during the 13 years that it has been in existence.
To some reports of the Royal Commission the Government have given a speedy response, hut, regrettably, to others, such as the fifth report, the Government took seven years to respond. Although it is nine months since the most recent report of the Royal Commission, which reviews much of its previous activity and looks towards the future, we have not yet had any response from the Government. I hope that the Minister will say when we can expect a response to that tenth report.
The Royal Commission is omitted, but the Countryside Commission is mentioned in the amendment.


Unfortunately, it does not appear to have fared better in achieving a Government response. The recent report "A Better Future for the Uplands" and the related report by the RSPB, "Hill Farming and Birds", are both important and serious contributions to current discussions on agriculture and conservation. One may not necessarily agree with all the recommendations and views; none the less they merit a serious Government response. It would be welcome if the Government would say when they intend to publish a full response to those two major reports.
In his speech the Minister referred to the draft regulations which have been submitted to the EC on efficiency in agricultural structures. He said that they have friends in the farming community and in the environmental lobby. However, he did not say whether they have friends in the EC. One or two bodies have expressed some concern about the Government's position if they do not succeed in persuading our European colleagues about the merits of the draft regulations. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister would say something about the Government's fallback position.
Much has been said about the Wildlife and Countryside Act. That legislation came under attack from all sides before it found its feet. There is widespread agreement in the House that it has some serious shortcomings, such as the three-month gap between the notification and confirmation of SSSIs when, if the owner chooses to be irresponsible, he can easily destroy the special site. Section 29 contains the problem of the possible gap between the end of the three-month period for negotiation of a management agreement if no such agreement is forthcoming and the time that it takes to make a conservation order.
I think that all hon. Members recognise that the measure introduced in the previous Session by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) commanded widespread support. It is the view of the House that such a measure should be on the statute book. But it would appear that the Government are not now disposed to introduce legislation and would rather leave it to a private Member. Perhaps the situation is worse than that. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has a great interest in the matter, but if the contents of his Bill were such that they did not entirely meet with the Government's approval, I fear that the Bill might not necessarily be given the fair wind that it would require to reach the statute book. We shall not be impressed, and I do not think that many outside the Chamber will be impressed, if parliamentary games and tactics stop worthwhile legislation getting on to the statute book.
If there are to be differences of opinion—as there are—on what is needed to improve and amend the Act, surely the proper place to debate that is on the Floor of the House or in Committee in the context of a Bill. We need a Bill, preferably sponsored by the Government in Government time, so that the issue can have the full airing that it deserves.
In that context I would have constituency viewpoints to put forward. I can safely say that the Act has not been the most welcome legislation in my constituency. The farmers and crofters in Orkney and Shetland are not particularly anti-conservation. The fact that birds, such as the hen

harrier and the whimbrel, which are rare in the United Kingdom, remain there evidences the conservationist attitude of my constituents over many years.
The key to the Act is clearly the co-operation and trust between farmers and conservationists. I regret that that cooperation has been put under considerable strain in Orkney and Shetland. There have been considerable feelings of bureaucratic imposition on the traditional sturdy independence of the crofters and farmers. At times it is felt that too large an area has been designated and that the appeal procedure is limited. Indeed, it is felt that the NCC is judge and jury in its own cause.
When the farmer receives his list of notifiable operations, too often he assumes them to be prohibitions. That has led to a breakdown in trust and confidence. That highlights a slightly wider problem. If we are to notify and re-notify the many thousands of owner-occupiers whose land is covered by SSSIs, that must clearly be done properly so that trust and confidence can be built up. To do that, the NCC requires far more staff than it has. The staff must not only possess the necessary nature conservation expertise but understand the farming way of life, particularly of farmers living in marginal areas. The NCC clearly lacks staff. When the House passed the Wildlife and Countryside Act it imposed duties on the NCC, and we have an equal duty to provide the NCC with the resources to carry out those duties.
Reference has also been made to the level of compensation. Clearly, the Act is open to abuse. People have threatened to develop land on which they previously had no intention of undertaking development. One reads of the possibility of between £50,000 and £100,000 per annum being given not to drain Elmley marshes. Everyone recognises that there should be a tightening up on such abuses and that we should not be paying out vast sums to prospective speculators or maverick farmers. But at the same time the regulations should ensure adequate finance to compensate the marginal farmer who has to forgo some expanded production in the interests of conservation.
It is possible to accommodate both agricultural and conservation interests. But we need to find ways in which management agreements are seen not solely in restricted and negative terms, but as containing a strong and very positive component. They should be sensitive to the particular needs of rural communities. For example, I think of my constituency and of islands, such as Fetlar and Eday, where almost all of the economic activity relates to agriculture. To adopt a negative, restrictive approach to conservation in such areas threatens one species, in particular—man himself.
There is, therefore, a need for positive management. We must always keep before us the thought that the countryside should not be turned into a museum or a place to which only tourists or weekenders go. Moreover, it should not be turned into a place to which only botanists or ornithologists go to do their research. The countryside should be a living place in which people have their homes and work in harmony with their environment.
In recent months two major environmental issues have illustrated the close connection between the environment and energy. I refer to the major issues of acid rain and radioactive waste. It is clear that hon. Members cannot do justice to a subject like acid rain during such a wide-ranging debate as this. It deserves a debate of its own. I think that the Government were once disposed to hold such a debate, but they have had a change of heart. That fuels


the suspicion that they are not taking the problem seriously enough and are bowing to some pressure from the Central Electricity Generating Board.
The figure of how much sulphur dioxide is put into the atmosphere has already been given. We believe that the time has come for a more positive response to be made, involving programmes of desulphurisation. Such programmes would help to clean up the environment and go a long way towards stimulating jobs in many parts of the country. I endorse what the hon. Member for Copeland said about radioactive waste. As I said during our debate in March on the tenth report, I agree that there is a need to reconstitute NIREX and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee to include a wider range of people, such as those from interested environmental bodies.
The fears about Sellafield have not gone away. Indeed, they are extending up the west coast of Scotland. Notwithstanding the Black report, we believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland should undertake independent monitoring and establish an inquiry into the position of the Scottish coastline. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, shakes his head. I can understand him thinking that there is no need to raise unnecessary fears. Unfortunately, those fears already exist. I receive letters in my postbag on the subject, as, no doubt, he does. Indeed, if the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) were present, I am sure that he would tell us that he receives similar letters. Those fears exist. There should be an inquiry into the matter.
I wrote, I believe, to the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, on a matter relating to proposals by a company called ENSEC to place radioactive waste under the seabed. As far as I know, those proposals have received little support from the radioactive waste industry. Indeed, I believe that any attempt to dump it—as has been suggested—under Stormy Bank in the Pentland firth would meet with downright opposition from my constituents. However, I have written to the Minister on that subject, and perhaps he will write to me telling me what the present status of those proposals is.
There is clearly an inter-relationship between energy policy and the environment. Energy conservation has obvious consequences for the environment. The Severn barrage and even windmills have consequences for the environment. That is why we believe that there is a need to resuscitate the commission on energy and the environment and to give it wider terms of reference, as recommended by the tenth report of the Royal Commission. Although the Government put the commission into suspended animation, they did not kill it off. In February 1983, a Government spokesman said that it would and should be revived if there was a pressing need.
We can clearly identify issues such as radioactive waste and acid rain as providing urgent need to take social and environmental factors into account when deciding on an energy strategy. At the end of the debate I hope that the Minister will let us know what the Government's intentions are with regard to the commission on energy and the environment. If he cannot do so, then perhaps he will write to me and let me know the situation.
I now wish to draw my remarks to a close—[Hots. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those hon. Members who say

that should realise that, if more alliance Members were called, I would not need to deal with every subject. I have tried to cover a wide spectrum.
It is clear that the environment is important to our wellbeing. Sometimes decisions have to be taken at international level if they are to be effective, but often our environment is best shaped by those who live locally and can respond best to-what is going on. That is why I believe that many decisions may well be taken wrongly if they are taken by a remote Secretary of State or quango. We believe that local involvement, sensitivity to local needs, and, wherever possible, local decision-making are the keys to a successful environmental policy.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I too welcome this debate on environmental matters. However, I do not accept the terms of the motion and deplore the tenor of some of the speeches made by Opposition Members. I have a particular regard for the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and applaud the initiative that he has taken on so many environmental issues, but the strictures that he showered on the Government and on Conservative Members were not only unfair but counterproductive. Those who care about the environment—and they exist in all parts of the House—know perfectly well that if we can obtain a consensus about the sensible and practical policies that should be undertaken, we are far more likely to be effective with Governments of whatever hue.

Mr. Hardy: Although I recognise that there are Conservative Members who share the view that there should be a consensus, they seem to be very thinly represented on the Treasury Bench. Indeed, when they have made a clear case, the Government have rejected it.

Mr. Chapman: I am sorry, but I do not accept that. In the past decade, Conservative Governments have clone many good things. One thinks, for example, of the setting up of the Department of the Environment by the drawing together of some of the chief Ministries that had a great influence on environmental matters. I think also of the Control of Pollution Bill, which was introduced in the dying days of the Conservative Government of 1970 to 1974. There is also the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the planned elimination of lead in petrol. Moreover, 2·5 million acres of interim green belt land have been added to the millions of acres of established green belt land, and there have been recent initiatives to promote and maintain our architectural heritage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) is Chairman of the Environment Committee, but is away attending an important international conference on the environment. He asked me, as acting Chairman of that Committee, to say that it would be unwise to comment on the Wildlife and Countryside Act, or at least on part II of it, which relates to sites of special scientific interest. The reason for that is that the Committee is shortly to make some recommen.dalions to the Government.
It would also be wrong of me to talk about the recently published report on acid rain. It represented a most comprehensive examination of the problems, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has promised a debate upon publication of the Government's response to that


report. However, I shall say one thing about part II of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. It mainly concerns itself with more than 4,000 sites of special scientific interest, covering about 1·5 million acres. But that represents less than 5 per cent. of the total countryside. Therefore, I shall address a few remarks to the wider countryside issues that have been raised.
It is estimated that in the past 35 years over half our lowland heaths have been lost, half our fenlands drained, over one third of our ancient woodlands felled and over one quarter of our upland heaths and grasslands destroyed. A dramatic change has taken place in our countryside. I use the word "fenlands" because it might be imprudent for an aspiring Tory Back Bencher to use the word "wetlands".
The dramatic change is principally the result of the intensification of agriculture but that is not the farmer's fault. It is the fault of successive Governments who have wished for and willed— for good reasons or bad—maximum food production. That has been achieved by a system of agriculture subsidies.
The loss of and damage to our natural habitat is not principally the farmers' fault. They have acted quite properly by taking the opportunities offered. In any case, the countryside should not be preserved in aspic. The worrying factor is the scale of the change. At the least, we must supplement financial support for agriculture with a more coherent and comprehensive structure of grants for conservation.
I take particularly to heart what the hon. Member for Wentworth said about the grubbing up of so many hedgerows— the seedbeds of much of our rural tree stock. The scale of the loss of hedgerows has been reduced, but the problem is still worrying. I declare an interest as the president of the Aboricultural Association.
In England alone there are over 5,000 conservation areas and over 300,000 buildings listed as being of architectural or historical interest. Yet, year after year, hundreds, if not thousands, of buildings— our architectural inheritance— are either damaged or demolished. I suggest it might now be time to give organisations and planning authorities another two years to decide which further buildings should be listed, and then impose a moratorium for at least five years, or possibly 10 years, when no further buildings could be listed. Then we could concentrate modestly increasing resources on trying to prop up, repair and truly preserve buildings already listed. We should concentrate on the conservation of excellence rather than the preservation of mediocrity.
I hope that I am not complacent, but I believe that this Government's record deserves commendation, not condemnation. It is sometimes difficult to reconcile the nation's economic needs and the conservation of the environment. We have to ensure a balance between commerce and conservation. This Government can take some credit for elevating the environment to the higher political status that it now justifiably enjoys. I ask the House to reject the motion and to vote for the amendment.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: People living in urban areas have environmental rights. My constituents have suffered severe hardship. The Clifton valley in my constituency has suffered total degradation. It has been

spoilt by industrial abuse. The Greater Manchester council decided to sump waste at Lumn's lane in the valley. Local people were prepared to accept that further degradation, because they hoped that the land could be converted to a recreation area. That possibility gave the people great joy. That was the great hope—the dream. Then along came the vandals from the Department of the Environment. After all their suffering, the Department decided to worry my constituents even further by suggesting that the area be used as a dump for low-level radioactive waste. We protested, but failed.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was right when he said that an environmental impact statement should be made in such circumstances. He also said that local authorities should be consulted. That makes sense. The people who live in an area should have a say about what happens there. That is reasonable and fair. The local authority, which is responsible for the disposal of rubbish, should also have a say.
The Greater Manchester council said, "We will not place low-level radioactive waste in the area." The Salford city council said that it did not want the waste in its area, but the wise boys in London said "Yes, you will have it." What an example of democracy. I am reminded of the line in the song,
Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.
Everyone says that low-level radioactive waste is safe, but nobody wants it. The final test is whether the inspectors would accept it in their back yards. They ensure that it is transported in metal containers, but then it is dumped in plastic bags. I am not exaggerating. It is causing fear and terror among my constituents. Anyone can organise a petition, but hundreds upon hundreds of people in the area are organising petitions. They are deeply concerned and affronted.
The Minister must reconsider. Low-level radioactive waste disperses quickly, but it must be guarded. To dump such waste in plastic bags 1·5 m below ground is madness. I do not see why my constituents should have to put up with it.
The Manchester ship canal has served this country well. It is not a canal in the accepted sense of the word; it is a canalised river—a river turned into a canal. It was used from Salford to the sea when it was prosperous. The canal is not as prosperous now. Its prosperity seems to have stopped half way down. The Manchester Ship Canal Company is anxious to cease its obligations on the landward side. The canal has become part of the water table. It is a natural environment in the area, even though it is man—made. I urge the Minister, in deciding the future of the Ship Canal Company, to take account not only of environmental but of commercial interests.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I shall not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) who spoke with passion.
I welcome the debate, but I resent some of the attacks on farmers and landowners that we heard at the beginning. In my experience, numbered among them are the best conservers and preservers of the environment that I have come across. We should be careful before accepting the figures given by pressure groups, albeit important, respectable and responsible ones such as the Nature Conservancy Council. I believe that the figures cited for the loss of SSSIs and traditional woodlands have been


shown to be inaccurate. It was, therefore, unwise of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to rely upon them in presenting the motion. The Government's conservation record is good.
In my first speech in the House I expressed my concern and, I believe, the concern of many for the environment. I advised the House of the dangers from mass tourism. I compared the effect of mass tourism upon the centre of London with the effect on Badbury rings near my Dorset home. Today, we read of the effects of mass tourism on Hadrian's wall. If anything, that small example should show us the threat to our heritage and environment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is not the answer to give access to far more of our countryside so that tourists are spread more thinly and particular honey spots are not damaged in that way? It is important to have more access.

Mr. Baker: It might be the answer, if that were the result. Unfortunately, I do not believe that it is. What must be done is much more complicated. We certainly should not encourage the development of mass tourism.
I want to make four points. First, I hope that, in the spirit of co-operation to which many hon. Members have referred, there will no longer be a debate about the place of the private landowner and private owner of heritage assets. Undoubtedly, the National Trust does a good job, but the trust and the Government can only be a weapon of last resort. Inevitably, we will depend upon individual owners of heritage houses and assets. The individuals who own beautiful houses work harder, invest and care more for their houses and possessions than any statutory or public body could ever do. In my experience, those individuals are just as prepared to share those houses and possessions with the public as any public body.
I look to those who are becoming, have become and will become—if our economy succeeds in the way we hope—the newly rich. It is shocking to mention the newly rich, but I hope that they will see that one way of applying their wealth for the benefit of the general public is to acquire those heritage houses and assets so that they can look after them and share them with the rest of us. If we accept that idea, we must look at ways of encouraging individuals. I believe that there are ways in the taxation system— in capital and income taxes— to encourage individuals to apply their wealth in that way.
Secondly, I would like the Government to play a more positive part in encouraging museums and galleries to charge those who wish to see the beautiful exhibits. Undoubtedly, that is a good way of improving the facilities of museums and galleries and of making them more attractive. It is a way also of financing the purchase of the heritage assets that the museums and galleries wish to acquire. There are easy ways of making exceptions for those who are out of work and for schoolchildren who cannot afford to pay the charges.
My third point concerns the environment. When I was being lobbied by a helicopter company I had the opportunity of doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) suggested—flying at 1,000 ft over the south of England. I was struck by the disappearance of wild countryside and the way in which the country had been neatly parcelled out. I noted also the pressure of development in the south of England. We all talk about what farmers do in the course of earning their

living. Of course, farmers must earn their living, and we should support that. We do not, however, mention the pressures applied to those who live and work in the countryside. The pressure from development in the south of England is greater today than it has ever been.

Mr. Robert Adley: Particularly in Dorset.

Mr. Baker: I heard my hon. Friend say, "Particularly in Dorset". He has anticipated my next remark.
Dorset's population and:ate of development are well above its structure plan level and greater than the levels in many other parts of the country. I believe for environmental reasons, apart from any others, that the development of planning in that part of the south of England must be restricted. I hope that Ministers in the Department of the Environment will do much more than they have done in past years to uphold local planning decisions. The way in which those decisions are overturned is giving cause for great concern.
I want more development in our inner cities. The people of Liverpool who may wish to enjoy the environment in Dorset and the people of Dorset are concerned that the centre of Liverpool should remain a place in which people want to live and work so that the environment in Dorset, which is different, can be maintained.
I decided to mention my fourth point after noting the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. I hope that he will comment on any encouragement he may give to the private rented sector. This aspect is not irrelevant to the subject we are discussing, and my hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that. If we intend to develop the inner urban areas and at the same time to provide for job mobility, while riot allowing areas such as Dorset to provide the bulk of new houses, we must look much harder at developing the private rented sector. There is a great opportunity for my hon. Friend to undertake the radical and, ultimately, successful reforms to which I believe he is sympathetic.
I hope that this spirit of co-operation in discussing our heritage and the environment will continue, because that is the right attitude for preserving what we value.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 14 January there will be a trial of two men, one from Solihull and one from Ashby-de-la-Zouche, who are accused of uprooting a water soldier—stratiotes alo ides—at Ludham marshes.
As far as we can gather, that will be the first time that there has been any prosecution under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. After all the many hours some of us spent in Committee, deciding what was to be notified and the various categories to be included in the Bill, we have to wonder whether that is a sensible way for Parliament to proceed. If we are only now to have the first prosecution, what were we doing, spending all that time on the Bill? That is a genuine question.
Is it a surprise to the Ministers that this should be the first prosecution? Are they worried that the legal authorities have little detailed knowledge of this type of Act and therefore find it difficult to prosecute?

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): The hon. Gentleman, with his long experience in the House, will know that although we may describe the principles, I cannot get involved—and I should have


thought that the hon. Gentleman would not want to get involved—in the details of a case in which he says a prosecution has been brought.

Mr. Dalyell: I leave the matter by saying that this is the first time that a prosecution will have been brought. My general question is whether it is sensible for us to proceed by supposing that the authorities can prosecute in such detailed and possibly arcane matters.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We also spent a long time in Committee dealing with marine nature reserves. They are clearly the Government's responsibility, but the Government have done even less about them.

Mr. Dalyell: I was intending to ask about that, but the question has been properly asked for me, so we can save time.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee spent a long time arguing about whether Ministry of Agriculture money should be used for conservation purposes. The Sandford amendments are relevant here. Is it possible to identify the amount of Ministry money devoted to conservation purposes since the passing of the Act? The answer may be zero.
We spent a long time in Committee on pre-notification arrangements. Why have the arrangements for prenotification by farmers been curtailed? Is it because of the shortage of personnel or is it a matter of policy? Some of us thought that the pre-notification obligation on farmers was a civilised way of getting their co-operation and a sensible way to proceed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned the serious weakness in the arrangements to protect landscapes and the wider countryside in the absence of any requirement for farmers, outside national parks and SSSIs, to get prior approval for operations subsidised by the Ministry of Agriculture. My hon. Friend said that the Act should be amended so that the pre-notification arrangements that apply in national parks were extended to cover the whole countryside. That is an important and reasonable request. Will the Minister who is to reply at least comment on it?
Lord Belstead wrote to me on 21 November about Halvergate, saying that some of the legal arrangements had been sorted out. I suspect that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is familiar with the letter that raised the question of European money. What have the Government learnt from the Halvergate experience? In the cooler light of day, with winter coming on, what will be done to stop such situations arising in the future?
We could talk for hours about the resources available to the Nature Conservancy Council and the Natural Environmental Research Council, but we have only minutes available. The broad question is whether the Government are satisfied with the resources made available to the NCC for its day-to-day work and to the NERC for making grants, particularly to universities. Should the NERC be given more money? Is it as desperately short of money as it claims?
The chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, Lord Charteris, has asked for more Government funds. I do not think that any response has been made. I do not ask that much more money should be given to the fund,

because I am not sure that it is a top priority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) made clear, the urban environment has many pressing problems.
I ask a different question. In giving money to the fund, is any account taken of the employment opportunities provided by labour-intensive work? Some of us think that heritage funds should be given more willingly if that money can be used, particularly in repair work, to create jobs, especially in areas where there is a desperate shortage of employment. Is account taken of the number of skilled jobs, albeit in crafts and possibly old-fashioned work, such as lead-working or stonemasonry, that can be provided through money given to the National Heritage Memorial Fund?

Mr. Christopher Murphy: To talk about the failures of Government policies to safeguard the natural environment and national heritage of Britain is to be, in the current phrase, gratuitously offensive. The emphasis laid on those matters by the Wildlife and Countryside Act and by the National Heritage Act is surely evidence of the falseness of that claim. Many of my hon. Friends have shown that clearly.
However, that is not to say that further action is not urgently needed in some respects. I should like to direct the attention of the House not so much to the wide scope of the debate as to the "scape" of the land and to consider not so much areas "beyond the fringe" as the fringe itself. In land use terms, there are three "scapes"—townscape, farmscape and wildscape. Between those "scapes" are the fringes—"rurban" fringe and marginal fringe.
The consequence of the derelict inner city has been the invasion of the green field site by urban dwellers and urban companies alike, thus turning farmscape into the "rurban" fringe. Some measure of that can be seen from the fact that recent surveys estimate that "rurban" fringe now occupies twice the area of townscape, and consists of a chaotic mixture of rural and urban land uses in mutual conflict. There is an inevitable knock-on effect of such a change to the farmscape, resulting from the diminution of properly utilised townscape. The effect is on the wildscape, often heath or moorland.
Now there is a marginal fringe, where the farmscape is encroaching on the wildscape, thus creating an uneasy mixture of farmland and woods or rough grazings. Therefore, no longer do we have the traditional benefit of a compact, busy, well-functioning, built environment, with well-used parks making up the townscape, and uninterrupted, food-producing land with scenic attractions, giving us the farmscape. Instead, we are diminishing those assets in favour of uncomfortable fringes that are less appropriate for our requirements, both economic and pleasurable.
Government action has rightly been concentrated, during the life of the last Parliament, and continuing into this one, on overcoming urban deprivation by utilising innovations such as the urban development corporations and enterprise zones, and has correctly laid emphasis on the private sector. Now is the time to be considering the ways of tackling most successfully the rehabilitation of land in the "rurban" fringe, and then, for the future, to ensure that the adverse consequences of the marginal fringe are overcome.
I am especially conscious of the growth of the "rurban" fringe, and its effect on the farmscape, representing as I


do a constituency in Hertfordshire which almost borders Greater London. In addition, having two new towns on what were green field sites enhances one's appreciation of the importance of successful land use.
To overcome such problems, it is necessary to seek a well-founded and operational conservation partnership. Government, both national and local, is one partner which sets the economic and social conditions in which nature conservation must operate. Farmers and land owners are another, as custodians of much of the national heritage. Conservationists, together with interested scientists and concerned members of the public, provide a further element of that partnership. The future success of Government policies to safeguard the natural environment and national heritage of Britain will be greatly enhanced if such a triumvirate of partners can be bound together, both in conservation decisions and in conservation actions.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am privileged to follow the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), who made an interesting and intriguing speech.
The offence that the hon. Gentleman seems to have taken when Opposition Members criticised the Government because of their policy towards the environment should be taken at face value, because he supports a Government who support the common agricultural policy, which in turn supports an economic system which places a higher value on profit than on anything else. It is those pressures which require farmers and food producers to act in a way that is detrimental to the environment.
The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) recognised that Government economic and agricultural policy have been forcing farmers, in pursuance of profit, to do things which are damaging to the environment. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield should not take offence when Opposition Members criticise the Government for adopting those policies.
I am prepared to accept that Conservative Members are genuinely concerned about the environment and are sincere in their expressions of concern for it, but if they are to be meaningful in their expressions of concern they must recognise the economic systems which are causing the problems.

Viscount Cranborne: rose—

Mr. Davies: I shall not give way, because I have not yet had time to develop my speech. If the opportunity arises, I shall be prepared to give way later to the hon. Gentleman, although I recall that when I last did so there was some disagreement between us.
I am concerned with the problem of the operations of the Forestry Commission, and particularly its impact on the environment in my native country, Wales. In July this year the commission announced that it would be closing the conservancy office in Cardiff, with a loss of 45 jobs. It also meant that the commission had lost an opportunity. The commission has as its primary purpose the production of timber. It does not at present have a responsibility for wider conservation issues. Following a reorganisation, the commission lost an opportunity to branch out and to use its resources, staff and expertise, in a much more constructive way to enhance our natural environment. Unfortunately, instead of taking that opportunity the

commission ignored it, and decided that it would merely follow the requirement placed on it by the Government, in pursuance of its charter, for timber production, and to be efficient in economic terms. It closed down the office without any thought of the consequences for the local community. That is an example of the way in which the commission is failing to adapt to changed circumstances.
I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House understand why the Forestry Commission was established. We understand the strategic argument for timber production and the need to be self-sufficient in times of war, although I do not know what we shall be able to do with 1 million hectares of coniferous timber when the next war breaks out. We are aware of the economic argument and the need, for economic reasons, to be as self-sufficient as possible in timber production, although, despite all the efforts of the Government and the support given to the Forestry Commission and the private sector, we are still producing only 9 per cent. of our national timber needs, and 10 per cent. of that timber is of such little value that it has to be exported for pulp purposes.
We have not realised that the responsibility that was placed on the Forestry Commission no longer exists; at least, successive Governments appear not to have noticed it. In 1972 the Treasury did a cost-benefit analysis of the operations of the commission, and said that it
could find no reason for increasing the area under timber arid even had difficulty in justifying investment in maintaining the existing area and stock.
The analysis went on to say:
There are no strategic considerations— defence or commercial—relevant to new afforestation.
That was 12 years ago. Since then the Forestry Commission has done very little other than to follow the well-trodden path of allowing mature, historic, ancient woodlands to be destroyed, and to allow or encourage the march of coniferous plantations across some of the most attractive and valuable parts of our natural landscape, at an increasing cost to the public. That is what has happened over the past 12 years since the Treasury report 'was published. It shows, to say the least, a considerable lack of imagination on the part of the Forestry Commission. It has not realised that there are changed circumstances, and now has no strategy for dealing with the problems of the environment and of conservation which are increasingly coming to the fore in the 1980s.
I should like to mention two consequences of the operations of the Forestry Commission. First, there is the loss of our upland areas. They are the areas which maps now designate as the less favoured areas— broadly above 500 metres. The Royal. Society for the Protection of Birds, in a survey, calculated that since 1946 about 197,000 hectares of moorland have been lost. In my native south Wales, about 50 per cent. of the total upland areas has been lost since 1946. Between 1976 and 1983, we have lost 11,300 hectares of upland area to afforestation. That is worrying, because it means that we have lost a valuable and precious habitat in terms of flora and fauna. In particular, we have lost the bird life which can flourish on upland areas. The Forestry Commission has at least been party to destroying employment in agriculture and associated industries. The employment that the commission itself has provided has proved to be transient, to say the least.
A report in The Guardian of 24 September 1984 mentions present Government policies towards the Forestry Commission, requiring it to dispose of assets. The report says:
Communities are also threatened. Probably the most extreme example is the recent sale of the 1,500-acre Brycheniog Forest in Brecon, South Wales, for more than £2·5 million to a private forestry group. Ten workers were made redundant and Llaneglwys, the hamlet dependent on the forest, is threatened. Its houses were built by the commission in the 1930s and the local agricultural workers' district secretary, Mr. Stuart Neale, fears that the community could die.
Therefore, in addition to the destruction of the employment that existed before the Forestry Commission's operations, we now find that because of its operations the employment that it generated is also being destroyed. We know the cost to the Exchequer and to the environment. Studies have shown the contributory effect of afforestation to acid rain. No benefit is accruing to the Treasury or the environment as a result of the commission's operations.
Secondly, there has been the loss of broadleaved woodland habitat. That ancient woodland is valuable as a resource in economic terms and in terms of its habitat and landscape value, and its use to the people for recreation and associated purposes. A report by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, endorsed by the Nature Conservancy Council, showed that since 1947 between 30 and 50 per cent. of that ancient and semi-natural woodland has been destroyed. Since the war about 60,000 hectares of mature oak woodland in England alone have been destroyed by the operations of the Forestry Commission. In my own county of Gwent, since the turn of the century, we have lost about 67 per cent. of our ancient woodland. The commission is sanguine, to say the least, in its treatment of those figures. Its report entitled "Broadleaves in Britain" states:
Contrary to popular belief there has been no appreciable change in the total area of broadleaved woodland over the past 30 years.
That view is challenged by almost everyone who is concerned with the countryside. It is challenged by the NCC, the Countryside Commission, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Friends of the Earth and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. We all understand the way in which the censuses have been done. We understand the way in which the Forestry Commission has been interpreting the figures that have been produced. We know that the commission is conning the British public when it says that there is no loss in the total standing area of native woodland.
A new approach is needed. New policies are needed. My colleagues on the Front Bench have made it clear that if the Government are prepared to introduce policies that will provide protection to existing SSSIs they will receive support from the Opposition. The Government know that if they introduce policies requiring the Forestry Commission to have a broader remit and to look at the demands of other users, they will receive support from the Opposition. If the Government develop new policies for environmental conservation and impose them on the Forestry Commission, they will receive support from the Opposition. Above all, if the Government require the commission to achieve greater co-operation and more meaningful consultation with other public bodies such as

the water authorities, local authorities and conservation organisations, they will have greater support from the Opposition.
The Government may argue that legislation will be needed. If so, they will find that there is broad agreement. Agreement now stretches even as far as the National Farmers Union. In its recent publications the union has said that it understands and accepts the nature of the problem. There is now a clear responsibility on the Government to recognise that consensus and to act upon it.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I welcome this debate on the countryside. The very fact that we are holding it is not the result of a mere esoteric interest within this Parliament, but a reflection of the public's growing interest in our natural heritage and its demand that we do more to protect it.
The Opposition attack the Government on their record. They cannot be blamed for doing so, for that is their role. We heard the attack by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). o However, I believe that the more dispassionate observer looking back at this time in years to come will see that it was this Government who presided over the most significant change of attitudes to the countryside this century. How much more effective it is to engineer a change of attitudes than to produce a plethora of words, as Opposition Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), do.
Whatever the minor failing of the Wildlife and Countryside Act— the Government are committed to seeing that those loopholes are plugged— we must accept it as a landmark for conservation and the protection of special sites. The Government can take much credit for it. However, as with many such advances, the Act has also helped to illuminate the path ahead. Above all, it has made us aware that conservation in the wider countryside, not just in the special sites, is also crucial, and we must do more about that.
Bodies normally in controversy agree on moves needed to protect the wider countryside. For example, we might expect the voluntary bodies and their 3 million members to spring to the defence of our natural heritage in the wider countryside. We might even understand that the Countryside Commission should support them. However, in addition, the Country Landowners Association and even the National Farmers Union have said that we must seek a better balance between farming and conservation in the countryside. One is amazed and delighted that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food admits that the goal of agricultural production is not the only one to be pursued, but that conservation is also important. That is a bandwagon indeed, partly created by Government action and partly a reaction to what the public want. We are witnessing a significant change in attitude.
However, it is clear that the Government must respond even more than they have responded so far. The countryside needs greater protection; the public want action; and the time is ripe and correct to do that. I welcome several signs that more is to be done, particularly the substantial extra resources going to the Nature Conservancy Council, but more action is needed. In pursuit of progress, I should like to recommend action in four areas.
First, the Government must enshrine as a principle the reality that no more habitat should be destroyed to increase agricultural production. It is one thing to farm existing land well—we must do that—but it is quite another to destroy valuable habitat with taxpayers' money simply to add to farming surpluses. All grants for that purpose must cease, and the money saved must be put back into conservation—into the countryside. In that respect I also welcomed the decision by the Ministry not to give grants for drainage on the Derwent Ings. I await with anticipation the paper on the future of drainage.
Secondly, we must draw a distinction between the prosperous farming areas in the east and the tougher conditions in the west. We must sustain the fabric of agricultural and rustic life in the most difficult farming regions. Recently the Countryside Commission called for an integrated approach to farming in the uplands. Why should not a 60-acre farm in Wales, for example, have 10 acres or more as productive woodland and be sustained as a viable farming unit using grants saved from other parts of the agriculture budget? We must welcome the Ministry's initiative to get Common Market funds and an integrated and balanced approach to farming in the less favoured areas.
Thirdly, I should like to refer to agricultural sprays. As a farmer, I now spray my wheat crop four or five times, or more, per year. I have to do that if I am to have an economic yield. Yet, as a naturalist, I am absolutely convinced that spraying causes the destruction of much insect life and is having a profound and damaging effect on wildlife on my farm. If we could make sprays with a specific effect and precise application, we would do more for wildlife than almost any other measure would achieve. Therefore, I urge more research on the use of sprays in agriculture.
Fourthly, I must mention acid rain. One has only to visit Scandinavia to recognise the calamity that haunts those countries. There are dead rivers and dead forests, becoming ever larger in extent. It is beyond doubt that sulphur dioxide emissions from this country are partly to blame. I support the Select Committee's call for direct action now. We must join the 30 per cent. club and start a programme of emission control. To do that would not just be to accept our responsibility and to regain much good will. To ignore the crisis now will lead not just to further damage to the environment but to an ignominious U-turn in the future. In general, I support the Government's action in encouraging the right trends to protect our environment, but I cannot do so on acid rain.
I have spoken specifically about the protection of our remaining habitats, the need to support an integrated approach to farming, to find a solution to the damage caused by agricultural sprays and to act rather than bluster on acid rain. Nevertheless, I believe that in general the Government understand the steps that need to be taken to protect our natural heritage. They must now spell out their programme. Indeed, they must go further in the education of the public and of farmers. After all, the best protection of all for the wider countryside to which I have mainly referred is for the farmers themselves, who are the custodians of the land, to understand how best to manage their hedgerows, look after their woodlands, dig out and protect their ponds and encourage their marshes. Ultimately it is the farmer who, with understanding, can do all those things for the benefit and health of our natural heritage.

Mr. Chris Smith: I support the Opposition motion. I do so as an unashamed advocate of the care of our natural heritage and countryside not just as an especially precious part of our national heritage but as an aspect of our life and culture which is a solace for the hearts, the eyes and imagination not just of those who live and work in the countryside but of people like my constituents who are encased in the inner cities in areas of high unemployment and deprivation. Those people need and desire the escape and solace provided by the natural environment, and it behoves this House to remember that and to cherish our heritage.
Press reports suggest that the Government wish to be seen as a Government who care for the environment and for green issues. Like their sister party in West Germany, they wish to outgreen the greens. They are constantly telling us of their concern about these issues. The Under-Secretary of State claimed today that the Government had a fine record on the issues involved in this debate, but I wish to look behind the words at what the Government have actually achieved, because the reality is very different.
The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) dealt excellently with the subject of acid rain. So far, the Government have refused to endorse the 30 per cent. reduction declaration made in Ottawa by most European nations. The Government have expressed sympathy and concern about the problem, but they have accepted the line constantly peddled by the Central Electricity Generating Board that more time and research are needed before action can be taken. That is not good enough. The damage is not confined to Scandinavia and Germany. In Galloway, in Wales and in the Lake District, this country is beginning to see the effects of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution. Emissions from our power stations and motor vehicles are a prime cause of that pollution. If the Government do not take immediate action, they will be storing up a great deal of trouble for the future. I hope that the Minister, when winding up the debate, will give us a great deal more hope than we have been given so far about the Government's determination to reduce the emissions of pollutants, especially from power stations, and to ensure that our air is cleaner, clearer and safer for the benefit of the environment and all of us.
Again, in their attempts to handle the difficult balance between agricultural and conservation interests the Government have so far failed to appreciate the problems now besetting us. Some aspects of the Wildlife and Countryside Act have rightly been applauded, but it has failed to deal with other problems. Both sides now agree that the three-month loophole on designation of SSSIs must be plugged. The Act is defective in other ways. I hope that the forthcoming report of the Select Coimnittee on the Environment, of which I have honour to be a member, will show clearly the areas requiring amendment. So far, the Government have not introduced their own legislation to improve the Act, but they have made it widely known that they would welcome a private Member's Bill to do their work for them. I believe that in taking that attitude they are shirking their responsibilities in relation to the Act, but, if they decide to persevere with that course, I hope that they will give a warm welcome to the Bill likely to be proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark).
Many Conservative Members have pointed out that a major problem of the Wildlife and Countryside Act is that it relies purely on the voluntary principle in relation to conservation in areas other than SSSIs. I do not believe that that principle is sufficient. However great or welcome the change of attitude of the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association in the past two years, that does not mean that in each and every instance farmers and developers of agricultural land will concern themselves, as they rightly should, with the conservation interest.
Looking beyond the operation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the Government's pathetic record on acid rain, there are other aspects of environmental concern. Selling off Forestry Commission sites to private commercial interests involves untold potential dangers for the way in which those sites are used and developed. The Government have consistently refused to make available the information about pollution by private enterprise. The proceedings of water authorities take place entirely in secret. Grants are available from central Government to enable national park authorities to enter into management agreements. Central Government provide 90 per cent. for Dartmoor. Why do not other national parks benefit to the same extent? The Government's record on the environment, across the board, is very disappointing.
We should remind ourselves again of the overall picture. We should remember the losses that the country has experienced since the second world war—losses of lowland heaths, limestone pavements, ancient woodlands, lowland fens, uplands, grasslands and heath. We should remember that a quarter of the moorland on Dartmoor has been ploughed up for agricultural development since the second world war, and that in the Northumberland national park vast areas are still reserved for the use of the Ministry of Defence and are not open for the public to wander over.
We should remember that there are many faults in our countryside and in the way in which the Government fail to protect and preserve that countryside. That should not surprise us very much. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who has primary responsibility for these matters, made a revealing comment in his speech. He said that the countryside as we know it today is the product of a millionfold decision by private citizens. That may well have been true in the past. However, it is not private citizens who proposed to plant forests across the lower slopes of Creag Meaghaidh; who are buying up the land being sold by the Forestry Commission; and who are engaged on the agri-business development of farmland and prairie around the country. It is not private citizens who sit in the CEGB and refuse to acknowledge that they are the largest producers of sulphur dioxide in western Europe. Such matters are determined by the operation of large-scale commercial enterprises which have no concern whatsoever for the countryside and the environment.
We must demand of the Government— as the representative of our community—to be concerned, to take an interest and to take action before it is too late to preserve those items of our environment which are so precious a part of our heritage and which are far too valuable for us to lose.

Mr. Esmond Bulmer: I declare an interest as a member of the executive committee of the National Trust, a position that I share with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), which suggests that some of the divisions between us are more apparent than real. I propose to speak briefly, drawing on that experience. The trust is responsible for some of our greatest houses and gardens, miles of our most beautiful and vulnerable coastline, large areas of the Lake District and many acres of farmland, moorland and woodland.
Many people from overseas visit the houses, which are increasingly centres for a wide variety of recreational activities. They are also, thanks to co-operation with the Manpower Services Commission, providing much useful work for those who have left school and not yet found a job.
The House will realise that a great house is not simply a museum. The house is a living entity and, with its surrounding park, provides scope for a great deal of leisure activity.
The Government's first great contribution is in reducing inflation to tolerable levels. In the 1970s, as hon. Members will remember, labour, building and energy costs rose so steeply that it was impossible for the National Trust to accept houses with confidence that any endowment would be sufficient.
The House will understand that preserving such houses cost effectively demands that, so far as possible, the original family should stay there. The Government have therefore made a further contribution by reducing rates of taxation and, through the maintenance fund, in trading tax concessions for access for the public. We can begin to feel that the prevention which is so much better than the cure has been advanced.
We must still expect casualties, and there was one recently with Caulke. The Conservatives pledged themselves to drawing the teeth of capital transfer tax, but that tax still has teeth, and the sums involved were so large that the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund were not able to provide all that was necessary. The Minister has shown some expertise in getting the Treasury to change its mind, and I believe appreciate that greater flexibility is desirable. The fact that the Treasury would not accept the Hardwick route, allowing land not of heritage quality to be accepted as an endowment, was a retrograde step.
Those who served on the Committee which considered the National Heritage Bill know that the claims made on the trustees of the fund are very great, are increasing, and are likely to be more than the Treasury will give. When three great houses are all concerned at the same time—Caulke, Belton and perhaps Keddlestone— the sums involved are greater than the resources currently available to the National Heritage Memorial Fund. It would also be sensible for the Government to consider whether they could reduce one area of demand by moving towards the American system of providing tax incentives to people prepared to buy pictures and give them to galleries after their time. The potential call on the fund is enormous, given the increasing value of pictures in private hands.
I turn my hon. Friend's mind to two other factors. First, there is an opportunity which has already been mentioned today. As it has become clear that farm productivity has reached the point when subsidy must be cut, some of the


money which previously was devoted to the subsidies should be directed towards conservation in one form or another. The Achilles heal of the Wildlife and Countryside Act is lack of funds.
I hope, too, that more research can be undertaken into the technology of low-input, low-output farming. Any hon. Member who visits the Lake District will understand that small is beautiful and that the pattern of that landscape demands that it should be economically possible for people to stay there.
I hope that my hon. Friend will also address himself—if not today, then later on—to a problem created by the phasing out of the metropolitan counties. Speke hall in Liverpool and Lyme park in Manchester are both, under the proposals which are currently in hand, to pass to district councils. There is every reason to fear that those councils will not have the resources to meet the financial demands of the full repairing leases under which those properties are held from the National Trust at the moment.
I believe that we all share a dedication towards the idea of preserving for future generations the best of what exists in the country today. It is difficult to recreate the confidence which characterised those who laid out the parks in the 18th century, but we can at least ensure that the landscapes which came to fruition years after they were planned are preserved, and that all the opportunities for recreation are developed in a constructive way. We can ensure that our children value all that is good in our past because it is in their determination and that of all of us to preserve what is best that the hope lies. It is an issue which I believe is above party.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I understand that I have three minutes—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance about what an hon. Member has to do to get called? I was in for the opening speeches and unavoidably had to go to chair a Statutory Instruments Committee, providing a quorum for that Committee so that at least one Conservative Member could be in here trying to catch your eye. I returned as soon as that Committee's proceedings had finished. I have sat here and listened to rather more of the debate than many hon. Members who were called earlier and left almost as soon as they had finished their speeches.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) has been here throughout the debate. I was not aware of the reason why the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) left the Chamber, but I knew that he was not present for part of the debate. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand me if I say that he is a Front Bench spokesman and has other opportunities to speak in the Chamber. It is part of my responsibilities to look after the interests of Back Benchers who have rather fewer chances.

Mr. Skeet: I now have two minutes.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that conservation and the integrity of the environment is probably one of the most important aspects of life. However, I recollect the groundnuts scheme being formulated for east Africa in 1948. The British Government threw away £36 million in a great project that, unfortunately, did not conserve the countryside. I use that as an illustration in only one respect.
I have read from cover to cover the report of the Select Committee which considered the question of acid rain. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has not made any observations in response to that report. Perhaps I may make a few observations. First, there are multiple causes of the problem. There is not just one component—sulphur dioxide. Power stations are not solely responsible for the devastation of the forests in Germany. Ozone and aluminium leached from the soil may also be responsible. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who spoke to me outside the House a moment ago, is aware that only 2 per cent. of the sulphur dioxide produced in the United Kingdom travels to Norway. Secondly, there is little to be gained from throwing money at the problem as the solution is likely to be extremely expensive and may not result in the blessings that we all seek.
Unfortunately, my time is now up and I cannot make the remarks that I intended to make.

Dr. David Clark: The short speech of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet)—I should have liked to have heard it develop, and perhaps he will have another opportunity to do that—and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) highlight the difference between the two sides of the House.
Today's debate clearly illustrates the general disquiet at the Government's policy and their handling of environmental matters. Such matters affect the quality of life of millions of people and the surroundings in which they live. I do not need to declare my views on the environment. Since I came here in 1970 with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and some Conservative Members, some people have been prepared to declare their faith in environmental issues, even when it was not fashionable to do so. That is part and parcel of our Socialist philosophy and why we are prepared at times to say unfashionable things.
It has been a great disappointment to the Opposition for the past 12 months—I do not wish to dwell on the point but it must be put on the record again—that, while we have offered to participate with the Government in taking remedial action on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, they have not been prepared to respond. After all, we have delivered. Last year we delivered on the Crown land legislation and would have done so again. I hope that we can remedy this and other matters in other ways. We are prepared, even at this late stage, to make common issue with the Government to apply cosmetic improvements to their policy as long as the result is less damaging to our countryside and environment. However, we disagree fundamentally with the Government's basic approach.
I was also disappointed with the presentation of the Minister's speech. His speech did not do him justice. It was thin and he failed to address himself to the key areas of conservation. However, I am prepared to give him full marks for honesty because his speech reflected the Government's environmental policy: it is one of thinness and irrelevance.
There are several reasons for our tabling the motion. The first, which my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) dealt with, has not been stated widely enough. I refer to the international effect of the environmental movement. I was especially anxious to


learn that the Minister for Overseas Development has abolished the full-time post of environmental scrutineer in our Third world aid programme. Is that the case? If so, may we have an assurance that Environment Ministers will try to get a replacement for that vital role? We have only to see the terrifying pictures on television of Ethiopia and perhaps even the Sudan to realise that, while we pump aid into those countries, it is only an intermediate solution and that we need to do something about the environment.
Acid rain is another international problem. I do not want to go into detail because I hope that the Government will stand by their word and initiate a full-scale debate on the issue. The Government's stance is isolated and untenable. They should immediately sign the 30 per cent. declaration which was drawn up at Ottawa and support the EEC in the 60 per cent. reduction of sulphur dioxide and the 40 per cent. reduction of nitrous oxide.
In regard to the North sea, the Minister managed to salvage something out of the Bremen conference at the end of October. However, the British Government were again seen as the laggards of Europe. The Minister got together a face-saving formula about there being another conference in two years, but during the next two years much damage will be done to the North sea. Nothing has been done about waste dumping and nothing has been done about protection of the North sea. If the Minister talked to fishermen and seamen who ply from the north-east coast to Scandinavian countries he would hear evidence of the need for action. We believe that the Government have failed in their international obligations. That is morally wrong and to the disadvantage of British industry.
On the domestic scene, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) pungently made the point that the environment concerns the urban as well as the rural scene. Part of my Socialist philosophy rests on that. People from towns want to go out and enjoy the beauties of the countryside, but they also have a right to live in a pleasant environment. There is no need for urbanisation to be ugly. I should have thought that the advances of technology and planning made that unnecessary. However, there is still much work to be done to clean up our older industrial areas. Today I checked on the top four unemployment areas in England—1 had better not mention Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. They are south Tyneside with 25·5 per cent. unemployment, Hartlepool with 24·9 per cent. unemployment, Middlesbrough with 24·5 per cent. unemployment and Sunderland with 22·4 per cent. unemployment. They are all potentially attractive areas. Each has a coastline, and with a little help and a considerable amount of public investment the environment could be greatly enhanced. But the Government's policy on the clearance of derelict land is ineffective, especially in such areas, because the partnership scheme between the private and public sectors simply does not work in areas such as the north-east, where there is no private presence. I ask the Government to look seriously at this point. I know that they will shortly receive an approach from the Tyne and Wear county council, which wishes to discuss this matter, and I hope that they will respond positively to that request.
In its report in June this year, the Nature Conservancy Council said of farming:

Of all human activities that are damaging to nature, agriculture is overwhelmingly the most important because of the sheer scale of its impact".
As someone who tried to eke out a living on the land in the north-west, I can vouch for the veracity of that statement. I also recognise the scale of technological change and the impact of EEC policies on agriculture since I worked on the land more than 20 years ago. We now have over-production and despoliation, and the time has come for a change in policy.
Many times, farmers have said that Tom Williams, who I think came from Wentworth, was the best thing that ever happened to British agriculture. They never voted Labour, but that is what they said.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Some have done.

Dr. Clark: I apologise to my hon. Friend. The Agriculture Act 1947, which has served this country well, was based on self-sufficiency. The time has now come when the basic tenet of that Act is no longer strictly applicable. We are not now concerned with self-sufficiency so much as with over-production. I would not mind that over-production if we had the capability of transposing it to Third world countries, but we have not. Therefore, we need a definite statement that the Government are prepared to subjugate some of their MAFF policies to the interests of the wider environment.
There is potential within"—
the Wildlife and Countryside Act—
for setting farmers against conservationists, in a manner which we feel to be expensive, undesirable and unnecessary, in an unequal struggle in which the conservation of our countryside and wildlife can only lose in the long run.
Those are not the words of the Labour party. They were contained in this year's annual report of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Conservative Members have said that there is not much wrong with that Act, but it contains some basic flaws, as the Bow group paper repeatedly states. We want to try to rectify them.
I associate myself with everything that has been said about the disappearing SSSIs. I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) refer to the NCC as a pressure group and to doubt and question its scientific findings. That was unworthy.
We believe that the Forestry Commission and MAFF should be subjected to the same constraints as the water boards. We should like to see prenotification extended. We desperately want to see the creation of marine nature reserves, and action is needed on drainage. Those aspects of the Wildlife and Countryside Act have been widely explored, and I support most of the criticisms that have been made.
I had the pleasure of leading for the Opposition on the National Heritage Act. We supported it because it adopted a less elitist approach to the conservation of our national heritage, which is a heritage of working people just as much as of the grandees of the past. Many of us have complained that our approach to the built environment has been far too elitist. Because of that, many people who would have wished to benefit from our cultural heritage have missed out.
Today, the Hadrian's wall advisory panel produced a report drawing the Government's attention to the problem of mass tourism. That part of Northumberland needs mass tourism simply because no jobs are available. However, may we have a Government asssurance of a major


initiative towards a new approach? The Northumberland county council has bought a worn-out used quarry on the border between Northumberland and Cumbria. Will the Government give immediate assistance to develop it into an archaeological and historical park? I ask that because today there has emerged an adventurous scheme in South Shields to rebuild the eastern guard post at Hadrian's wall, the best preserved urban fort in the country. The county council has put forward an imaginative scheme, but must now go through the process of a long and expensive public inquiry.
That area is in desperate need of jobs, because 25 per cent. of the people there are out of work. Such a scheme will attract 250,000 visitors, and in no way will that harm the archaeological interpretation of that site.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Before the hon. Gentleman pleads for mass tourism, will he consider the impact on the environment, about which he cares, as is manifest from his remarks? I understand the need for jobs, but jobs in mass tourism as opposed to more selective tourism could have a devastating impact on the environment.

Dr. Clark: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. The answer to the problem is that put forward by my hon. friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). If people are congregating at the same narrow spot, we must try to get them to visit other places. Hadrian's wall is a good example. People visit one or two specific sites, yet there are many others which they should be encouraged to visit. However, given the restrictive access policy that is often adopted by private ownership, that is not possible. I hope that the Government will also consider the suggestion of the Hadrian's wall advisory panel that there should be a footpath along the length of the wall.
There have been declarations of surprise from Conservative Members at the ferocity of the views expressed by my hon. Friends. They should not be surprised. We feel particularly strongly that Government policies do not fully match the environmental challenges with which we are faced, and on occasions those policies are irretrievably damaging our countryside and environment.
Most of us represent areas which have suffered from the industrial ravages of the past, which has resulted in a legacy of unbridled free enterprise. Consequently, many generations have suffered immensely, and the quality of their lives has been permanently impaired. Most of us thought that we would never see such unbridled industrialisation again, but we now have a Government who are the declared proponent of the free enterprise system—the enemy of conservation and the environment. The Government's environmental policy is the most reactionary in western Europe. Compared with the Prime Minister, President Reagan appears to be a paid-up member of Greenpeace. As least he had the decency to sack his Secretary of State for the Environment when he proved to be a failure.
We tabled the motion, not because we are tired of the Government's crocodile tears on environment matters, but because the Government are damaging the environment and reducing the quality of life of many British people.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Ian Gow): The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)

started and ended his speech in a way which he will live to regret. He started with the implication, which I find especially unattractive, that only Socialists can be concerned about our natural environment and the national heritage of Britain. Conservative Members indignantly resent that charge. I believe that possessions which are owned, whether by a public body or by a private individual, are held by hon. Members, who are elected as temporary custodians and trustees for future generations whom we shall not see.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made a long and rambling speech. Whatever may be said about my speech, it will not be long, because I have been left only 10 minutes. It is a tribute to the House that so many hon. Members have been able to speak during a debate which has lasted only just over three hours. We will have had 16 speeches in all.
Conservative Members have been puzzled by the choice of topic. We are greatly surprised that the Labour party chose for one of its precious Supply days a matter on which we believe the Government have an outstanding record and on which the Labour Government's record was not one of which they could be proud.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State reminded the House of the keen interest which he and I take in motions for the Labour party conference. I studied the motions which were before the comrades when they were in Blackpool last month. [Interruption.] The former Patronage Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks), seems to make a habit of coming in and from a sedentary position interrupting Conservative Members. If he wishes to make an intervention now, I shall gladly give way. It appears that he does not.
A motion before the Labour party conference, which was submitted by the Buckingham constituency Labour party, urged the Labour party to develop its policies on the environment and to communicate them more effectively to the electorate. I expect that a similar motion will be submitted to the comrades when they meet in 11 months' time.
The hon. Member for Copeland asked about the Control of Pollution Act 1974. It was left to this Government—the announcement was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) in February 1981—to embark on a four-year programme to bring the Control of Pollution Act into effect. We have decided that the major provisions of the Act will come into force by July 1985 and that part II of the Act will be entirely in force by July 1986. As a result, water authorities will have full powers of control over all inland waters, estuaries, underground water and the sea along the coast. They will have the means to tackle pollution of water, the careless handling of transport and the storage of chemicals. From the end of January proposals for major discharges of water must be advertised and be open to public objection and inquiry before a decision is taken. At the same time, water authorities will institute registers showing the performance of discharges. These will be open to public inspection from next summer.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) raised a constituency point which with characteristic tenacity he has pursued with my hon. Fritend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. He spoke with deep sincerity. When my hon. Friend met the hon. Gentleman recently, he told him that he would submit all of the papers to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. That


was done. As a result, all the hon. Gentleman's representations about Lumn's lane have received the most careful consideration by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by me separately. We have all reached the conclusion that, on the basis of the best and most objective scientific advice that we have received, what is proposed will be safe and will present no danger to the health of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised some specific points. I explained to him why I did not want to comment on the prosecution which he mentioned. He asked what would happen next to Halvergate. We are still considering the recommendations of the joint working group. We are aware that further steps are needed if we are to avoid next year the problems which we have faced this year. I shall write to him about the other points that he raised.
The hon. Member for Copeland spoke about the effect of farming methods on the landscape and habitat. Incredibly, he seems to have forgotten that, although the Labour Government, which he adorned for some time, had the opportunity to introduce legislation of that sort, this Government introduced the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The House knows that the operation of that Act is being examined by the Select Committee on the Environment. I do not wish to anticipate its findings. However, there is wide agreement that the Act has done a great deal to change attitudes to conservation in the countryside. That point was made in a powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who used to be a distinguished Minister in the Department of the Environment.
The Government's decision to provide further resources for the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission is positive proof of our commitment to making the Act work.
Regarding our built heritage, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England has made an excellent start. I endorse the tributes paid earlier to my noble Friend Lord Montagu. We have protected the parts of the heritage which Parliament decided should remain directly in the Government's care. The tower of London and Hampton court have seen further improvements with greater public access and an increased number of visitors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) referred to an accelerated survey of listed buildings which we initiated in 1981. That is proceeding rapidly and on time. The number of listed buildings has risen from 280,000 in 1981 to 328,000 last month. By 1987 we shall have the most comprehensive, scholarly and detailed listings of historic buildings in the world.
Decisions taken now will profoundly affect the quality of the built and the natural heritage for future generations. We need to look beyond the individual cases, important though they are, which have been raised in the debate. We need to put them in the wider context of what should be our joint purpose—to preserve the built and the natural environment.
The nation has inherited a marvellous legacy of historic buildings and a wide variety of landscapes and habitats. The majority of those are looked after by private individuals or bodies such as the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The

Government's purpose is to create conditions in which responsible and concerned attitudes can flourish. The measures that we have taken to enable the owners of historic houses to continue their stewardship and to encourage farmers to manage and conserve their lands are proving effective.
The Government understand that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is not perfect. The voluntary bodies do a great deal to protect our heritage. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has nearly 500,000 members. The National Trust has 1 million members. The Government are determined to build upon the successful initiatives that we have taken. The Government and the people are joint trustees for the next generation. The Government will discharge that trusteeship.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 276.

Division No. 21]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Dobson, Frank


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dormand, Jack


Alton, David
Douglas, Dick


Anderson, Donald
Dubs, Alfred


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashdown, Paddy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Eadie, Alex


Ashton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Ewing, Harry


Barnett, Guy
Fatchett, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Faulds, Andrew


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Benn, Tony
Fisher, Mark


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Flannery, Martin


Bermingham, Gerald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John


Blair, Anthony
Foulkes, George


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Boyes, Roland
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
George, Bruce


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Gould, Bryan


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bruce, Malcolm
Hardy, Peter


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Haynes, Frank


Campbell, Ian
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Canavan, Dennis
Home Robertson, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cartwright, John
Howells, Geraint


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hoyle, Douglas


Clay, Robert
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Janner, Hon Greville


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
John, Brynmor


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Johnston, Russell


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cowans, Harry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kennedy, Charles


Crowther, Stan
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cunningham, Dr John
Kirkwood, Archy


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Leadbitter, Ted


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Dewar, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Dixon, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)






Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rogers, Allan


Loyden, Edward
Rooker, J. W.


McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rowlands, Ted


McKelvey, William
Ryman, John


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


McWilliam, John
Sheerman, Barry


Madden, Max
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Marek, Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Maxton, John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Maynard, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Michie, William
Snape, Peter


Mikardo, Ian
Soley, Clive


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Strang, Gavin


Nellist, David
Straw, Jack


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


O'Brien, William
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


O'Neill, Martin
Tinn, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Torney, Tom


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wainwright, R.


Park, George
Wallace, James


Parry, Robert
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Patchett, Terry
Wareing, Robert


Pendry, Tom
Weetch, Ken


Penhaligon, David
Welsh, Michael


Pike, Peter
White, James


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Prescott, John
Wilson, Gordon


Radice, Giles
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart
Woodall, Alec


Redmond, M.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rees, Rt Hon M. ('Leeds S)



Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, George
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond


Aitken, Jonathan
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butcher, John


Ancram, Michael
Butler, Hon Adam


Arnold, Tom
Butterfill, John


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sydney


Batiste, Spencer
Chope, Christopher


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Churchill, W. S.


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Benyon, William
Cockeram, Eric


Bevan, David Gilroy
Colvin, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Conway, Derek


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Coombs, Simon


Blackburn, John
Cope, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cormack, Patrick


Body, Richard
Corrie, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cranborne, Viscount


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Critchley, Julian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Dicks, Terry


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dover, Den


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dunn, Robert


Bright, Graham
Durant, Tony


Brinton, Tim
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bruinvels, Peter
Emery, Sir Peter


Bryan, Sir Paul
Evennett, David


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Eyre, Sir Reginald





Fallon, Michael
Major, John


Farr, Sir John
Malins, Humfrey


Favell, Anthony
Malone, Gerald


Fletcher, Alexander
Maples, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marland, Paul


Forman, Nigel
Marlow, Antony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mather, Carol


Fox, Marcus
Maude, Hon Francis


Franks, Cecil
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gale, Roger
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Merchant, Piers


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Gow, Ian
Monro, Sir Hector


Gower, Sir Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Grant, Sir Anthony
Moore, John


Greenway, Harry
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grylls, Michael
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mudd, David


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Murphy, Christopher


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neale, Gerrard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, John
Newton, Tony


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Onslow, Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hayhoe, Barney
Ottaway, Richard


Heddle, John
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hickmet, Richard
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parris, Matthew


Hind, Kenneth
Patten, John (Oxford)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Pawsey, James


Holt, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Michael
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Pollock, Alexander


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idford)
Powley, John


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Price, Sir David


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hunter, Andrew
Proctor, K. Harvey


Irving, Charles
Raffan, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rost, Peter


Key, Robert
Ryder, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Knox, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Silvester, Fred


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Speller, Tony


Luce, Richard
Spence, John


McCrindle, Robert
Spencer, Derek


Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


MacGregor, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Squire, Robin


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stan brook, Ivor


Maclean, David John
Stanley, John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Steen, Anthony


McQuarrie, Albert
Stern, Michael


Madel, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)






Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Walden, George


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Waller, Gary


Sumberg, David
Walters, Dennis


Tapsell, Peter
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Taylor, Rt Hon John David
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Watson, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Watts, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Whitfield, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Whitney, Raymond


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thornton, Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas


Thurnham, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Woodcock, Michael


Trippier, David
Yeo, Tim


Trotter, Neville
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Younger, Rt Hon George


van Straubenzee, Sir W.



Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Tellers for the Noes:


Waddington, David
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Waldegrave, Hon William
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises the care and attention paid by Her Majesty's Government to the natural environment and the national heritage; pays tribute to the good progress made by the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission and the National Heritage Memorial Fund; approves of the encouragement given to the many voluntary agencies in these areas; and notes the increased resources Her Majesty's Government propose to devote to protecting the environment and the heritage in 1985–86.

Shipbuilding Industry

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
During the previous debate, no fewer than 17 speakers were called, including those from the Front Benches. If we can do as well in this debate, I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the deepening crisis in the British shipbuilding industry and the massive redundancies, already announced and in prospect; and demands urgent action by the Government to maintain this vital industry.
When the redundancies of 2,100 at Swan Hunter and 790 at Vosper Thornycroft were announced last week, the alarm felt by the Opposition at both the consequences and implications of even more job losses in British Shipbuilders was such that we rapidly initiated this debate in Opposition time. In the first instance, our concern is for the communities in both parts of Britain that have had to face yet another major addition to the relentlessly increasing total of the unemployed. I also fear that these redundancies are a further addition to the army of highly skilled unemployed. Many of those who will be thrown on the dole by these redundancies are, like so many of their predecessors, highly skilled workers whose talents we need to harness, not reject.
In a recent study on the east end of Newcastle upon Tyne, where, as the House knows, there is a heavy concentration of shipbuilding, the city council discovered that skilled workers account for 49 per cent, of the male unemployment total in that area. The effect of these redundancies will go far wider. For every person employed in shipbuilding, there are at least three in ancillary industries and services who depend on the industry.
We deplore these redundancies and their effects, but we also fear them as a sign of the deepening crisis that is affecting the whole of our shipbuilding industry, and we fear that more redundancies are likely to follow in the other shipbuilding areas unless there is an urgent change of policy by the Government. I hope that the Government will not seek to suggest that our fears and those of the shipbuilding communities of Tyneside, Wearside, Merseyside, Clydeside and elsewhere are unfounded.
It is widely, and correctly, believed that there is a level below which it is not possible to maintain a viable shipbuilding industry, and that we are perilously close to that level, if we have not already gone below it. If the Government do not believe us or those in the shipbuilding areas, I hope that they will not disregard the views of Sir Robert Atkinson, whom they appointed as chairman of British Shipbuilders. In an interview reported fully in the Sunderland Echo, on 23 July this year, he said that it was his belief that the industry had reached a critical point beyond which it could not survive. He went on to say— and this was in July, long before the present redundancies were announced—that any further contraction or closure would mean that the industry was no longer able to offer the range of facilities that it required for viability. The article reported him as saying:
'The industry has reached the bare minimum needed now'.
He believes the Government must be called upon to intervene to save the industry.


'I am a non-party man and a non-political man. All I care about is preserving a strong shipbuilding and engineering industry in Britain … and it breaks my heart to look at what has been done to shipbuilding in the past 18 months,' he said.
It is his great fear that the intention is to close yards one by one.
He said he was a great admirer of Mrs. Thatcher, but it's his belief that the Prime Minister has been badly advised 'by people who do not understand shipbuilding and its importance for the future.'
There may be some sitting on the Treasury Bench whom he had in mind. For the Government's appointed chairman to speak in those terms about the industry that he supervised is an indictment of the Government's stewardship of the shipbuilding industry.
The Government's defence today, as we see from their amendment, is that, despite the closures, the rundowns, the redundancies and other signs of retreat, they have done well by the industry because they have
provided over £1,000 million … to British Shipbuilders since 1979".

On some occasions the Government are less careful about the words. "Provide" often becomes "subsidy", although the Government know well that it is simply not true that there has been a subsidy of any such amount.
Let me once again refer to the views of the ex-chairman, Sir Robert Atkinson, on money provided to BS. He took the figure as £800 million but he may have been referring to the period up until he demitted office. The article said:
He"—
Sir Robert Atkinson—
said much has been made of the £800-million Government aid to shipbuilding from nationalisation to the time he left the BS Chair. But he said this was a 'half truth'— because the industry was so under-capitalised, one half of that £800-million was in fact used as working capital and in capital expenditure, not in direct subsidies.
The article went on:
The industry had to compete with the Far East where shipbuilding was subsidised to such a degree that ships were being built for the cost of materials or less. 'Even if our men worked for nothing and we paid no rent or rates or overheads, we could not match them," he said. But he warned that if the Far East succeeded in destroying our shipbuilding industry then their own ships would no longer be so cheap.
I want to refer to one further point in that interview with Sir Robert Atkinson. He says some things that Labour Members would not wholly approve of or agree with, but it is important that the House knows what he said. The article said:
He said it was true that in the past the industry had had a 'strike happy' reputation and the first question asked abroad was whether delivery times would be met. But he said: 'The unions may be to blame for a lot in the past, but in my time they accepted a pay freeze and massive redundancies just to keep their industry ticking over. Their reward for that has been closure and threat of closure.'
That is a striking thing for the former chairman of an industry to say. The article went on:
He pointed out also that in comparing productivity rates with Europe, what was often forgotten was that the wage rates were twice as high on the Continent. He said that during his Chairmanship—40-million worth of computerised equipment had been brought in with the co-operation of the workforce, and orders had been won from abroad—including the first orders from Norway in 25 years—through aggressive marketing. But what was happening now was that owners had lost confidence in the British shipbuilding industry because they sensed a 'lack of dedication and commitment' to it on the part of the Government.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way so early

in Sir Robert's speech. Would he not have been more up to date to quote the present chairman of BS who, in Shipbuilding News for September 1984, was quoted as saying:
I believe that had we taken some very difficult decisions; in 1977–78 a more competitive industry would have been preserved than that which we have today.
Had the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government taken the decisions that were necessary then, would we not have had a much better industry today?

Mr. Smith: I regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman, who cannot rise to the level of seriousness that the debate demands. Such facile attempts at witticism are not suitable to the debate. The point is that the ex-chairman, appointed by a Conservative Government, has condemned not only what has happened in the industry but has expressed a complete lack of faith in any commitment by the Government to the industry's future.
I quoted Sir Robert Atkinson at some length because it is important that the House and the nation should realise that the crisis in the shipbuilding industry is crucial, is happening now, and is thought to be happening now by those who know and care about the industry, and it is now that urgent action is required.
The first thing that the Government can and should do is to end the nonsense of privatising the warship building yards. There is no doubt that they are and will be the most profitable section of the industry. What possible sense is there in a strategy for a beleaguered industry which involves disposing of the profit-earning part and leaving the more difficult merchant shipbuilding sector unsupported and alone in the midst of the worst shipbuilding recession that we have ever seen?
There is, as was made clear by the present chairman in evidence to the Select Committee—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that what the chairman said is valid—no commercial reason for privatisation of the warship yards. The proposal did not come from BS. It came from the Government and it is they alone who must bear the responsibility for their folly.
It makes us ask the Minister—and ask very directly— whether the Government have any commitment to merchant shipbuilding in Britain. If it continues to decline, will the Government stand by and let it disappear? We know that the money raised by the sale of the warship yards will not go back to the industry; it will go to the Treasury where it will be lost among the billions of pounds spent on maintaining on minimum standards our army of unemployed. The irony will be—in this crazy world of Tory monetarist economics—that the proceeds from the sale of public assets may be used to pay for the unemployment caused by the Government's failure to support the same industry.
I do not imagine that there is one Minister who, if he were in charge of his own business and wished to stay in it, would sell the most profitable parts. Why then should they handle the nation's assets, of which they are only temporary stewards, with less care than they would bestow upon their own concerns?

Mr. Gerald Malone: rose—

Mr. Smith: I have given way already. This is a short debate and I must try to allow as many hon. Members as possible to take part.
Privatisation could be halted now and if it were it would be a sign that the fight to preserve and to maintain the


British shipbuilding industry had started in earnest. Let there be no doubt that this maritime nation needs a shipbuilding industry. We live by trade and our Navy is crucial to our defences. If we depend on others to build our ships, we shall not be able to guarantee the security of supply which is crucial to our national survival.
Under this Government we have seen the steepest decline in our shipping industry in almost its entire history. Both those trends— the declines in shipping and in shipbuilding—need to be halted by the adoption of a maritime strategy for the nation based on the maintenance and prosperity of our shipping and shipbuilding industries. It is the Government's task to bring the industries together, as other countries do. It was the order of 125 ships by the Sanko Shipping Company in Japan which rescued the Japanese shipbuilding industry and maintained its prosperity. The British Government should put on their agenda as an item of maximum importance the devising of new means— by tax concessions or more direct Government assistance— as other Governments do, to maximise the orders for British ships in British shipyards. I am less concerned about the precise means adopted— although I deplore recent changes which go in the opposite direction—than with the establishment of this maritime strategy as a national objective. It is the will above all which is lacking and which must be found.
The Government must also resolve to halt redundancies in the shipbuilding industry. If it is true—I believe that it is—that the industry is now at a minimum level, or even below it, the line has to be drawn and it has to be held. Otherwise, we shall see a remorseless decline as yard after yard in the merchant sector declines and closes. If that means, as inevitably it does, that Government support for the industry has to increase, that must be accepted as the necessary price for maintaining a crucial industry.
Instead of allowing it to be believed that the Government have little commitment to BS after the privatisation of the warship yards, an absolute determination to maintain the industry must be acted upon. Of course, BS, in this fiercely competitive world, must be as efficient as possible and it needs the support of everyone in the industry. If the Government signalled their commitment, there would be no difficulty in creating an atmosphere of total commitment by everyone within it to its success.
A useful example of that new-found commitment would be to reverse the foolish decision to close the engine factory at British Shipbuilders' engineering works— I refer to the BS(ETS) project—and thereby to end the project to build a new slow-speed diesel engine. British industry depends crucially, in all its areas, on new product development. It is tragic to see a project of such potential, in which only recently substantial investment was made, being closed. I fear that that is yet another example of Britain's industrial retreat. We should not be abandoning such an area of economic activity. As the Institute of Marine Engineers recently proposed, the engine project should be made part of a larger project for a total machinery propulsion system that would greatly upgrade marine engineering capability in the United Kingdom.
However, I fear that the Government do not seem to be disposed towards seeking new ways forward for our shipbuilding and marine engineering industries. Above all, what is lacking about the Government's policies, their

attitudes and their statements and about all their actions towards the shipbuilding industry is, as Sir Robert Atkinson so convincingly demonstrated, a commitment to the industry's success. But inside and outside the industry it is widely believed that the Government are simply indifferent about whether the merchant yards will survive. It is a serious charge, but I have to say that evidence is accumulating in favour of that view.
For this state of affairs, the Government deserve to be roundly condemned by all who care not only for the industry but for the national interest. We shall express our condemnation by voting for the motion in the Lobby.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'recognises the efforts being made by the British shipbuilding industry to overcome its present difficulties; notes that the Government has provided over £1,000 million of taxpayers' money to British Shipbuilders since 1979; recognises that only by becoming more competitive can the British shipbuilding industry have a secure future; welcomes the efforts of the industry's management to achieve that objective; and endorses the Government's decision to return British Shipbuilders' warship building interests to the private sector as soon as possible.'.
I welcome the debate as an opportunity to set the record straight. After the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), it certainly needs quite a bit of unbending.
I agree that there is cause for concern about the merchant order book. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the worst ever recession in shipbuilding. Of course, there must be concern about the international trading conditions that we face, and I agree that that concern is heightened by the inevitable redundancies at Swan Hunter and Vosper Thornycroft. But to listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, one would think that the whole world was queuing up to buy British ships and that it was only the obstinacy of a British Government that was stopping those orders. But nothing could be further from the truth. World demand for ships is deeply depressed. Even the Japanese are feeling the draught. The Ministry of Transport in Tokyo was reported the other day as having said that new building orders that were received between April and September amounted to only 3·9 million tonnes, which was 47 per cent, down on a year earlier.
The figures for our other competitors in Europe, including Italy and France, were also substantially down over the same period. But the latest figures in Lloyds Register show that in the 12 months to June 1984 the tonnage ordered in UK yards was up 8 per cent, over the same period. Despite the right hon. and learned Gentleman's arrival on the Opposition Front Bench to look after trade and industry for the Labour party, that party seems to get its needle stuck in the same groove. Again and again it suggests that the Government are doing nothing to support the industry. The Labour party repeats itself, so I need not be too abashed about repeating myself. The Labour party continues to peddle the myth that the Government have done nothing for the industry.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East quoted some of the figures of support under this Government. He referred to £1 billion since 1979 as being


designed to compensate for the under-capitalisation of British Shipbuilders. But unfortunately the truth is that a large part of that £1,170 million since 1979 has gone to pay for losses in British Shipbuilders. In the past two years it has lost £117 million and £161 million. Not all of that Government money has been to compensate for under-capitalisation. A large part of it has also gone for investment. This year, there will be support to the tune of about £217 million. Of that, £100 million is for investment for the long term.
The scale of losses seen in the recent past cannot be tolerated and would not be tolerated by—if it is possible to imagine such a thing—a Labour Government. I do not think that they would put up with it. British Shipbuilders must take steps—as it is doing—to stem the losses and to improve its performance. The half-year results will be available next month. I am confident that those for 1984–85 will be substantially better than those for the past two years. But unfortunately that does not reflect any dramatic upturn or improvement in the merchant shipbuilding business. It reflects the ending of huge losses on offshore work. Alas, British Shipbuilders has some way to go before regaining its competitiveness.
In such debates I am always accused of knocking the labour force or the performance of British Shipbuilders. But I acknowledge that British Shipbuilders is beginning to see marked improvements in throughput per man, in accordance with the corporate plan. The successful conclusion of the phase V pay agreement has opened up substantial changes in work practices. We are heartened by the return to work at Cammell Laird of the huge majority of the work force in the face of illegal and disruptive action by a small group of militants. I congratulate the back-to-work committee on its courage and on the lead that it has given. The dropping of the overtime ban by Swan Hunter and the attempts there to get the Atlantic Conveyor back on schedule have been equally welcome. But when there is concern in several yards— as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said— about new orders and the possibility of running out of work, it represents all the more encouraging evidence of the work force changing its attitude and being prepared to deliver ships on time in accordance with specifications.
Such a performance will give potential customers confidence in the yards. It is only if customers are confident about the performance, delivery and price that they will be persuaded to place orders in British yards.

Mr. Malone: It would be of great interest to the shipyard workers in my constituency who work in a very profitable yard called Hall Russell if my hon. Friend gave an undertaking tonight that, when the yard is sold, it will be sold for the purpose of shipbuilding. He has said that he is keen to reward those who are successful in the industry, and my constituents would welcome his undertaking.

Mr. Lamont: I shall come to that point later and I believe that I shall be able to go a long way towards satisfying my hon. Friend with an undertaking.
Despite recent events and improvements, British Shipbuilders has unfortunately sometimes acquired a poor reputation, which takes a long time to live down. We still have a long way to go, but we must acknowledge that if the present rate of improvement and the present optimistic developments continue British Shipbuilders will certainly deserve to overcome that reputation.
I return to developments in Brussels and in the Community. Last week, I and other EC Ministers in the Industry Council agreed to a two-year extension of the Community's fifth directive on shipbuilding aids. That provides the framework for aids in 1985 and 1986. Like its predecessor, which was accepted by the Labour Government, this directive refers to degressivity of aid, but it is able to be interpreted flexibly and will permit the Commission to respond to our proposals for an improved aid regime for the United Kingdom industry.
The House will recall that the Government told the Commission that it was their view that we needed a more generous aid regime in order to get the orders that are needed by our yards. I regret that the matter has not yet been concluded.
I saw Mr. Andriesson last week and had one of the several conversations that I have had with him. I hope to talk to him again this week. I left him in no doubt that, despite our dislike of subsidies, we believe that a higher level of intervention is justified. I left him in no doubt that the Government are not prepared to tolerate the multiple collapse of our merchant shipbuilding industry. It is unfortunate that matters have not been concluded, but in the meantime, as I have made clear to the House before, the Government are prepared to help to achieve orders on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I was waiting for my hon. Friend to mention the percentage rate of grant. Currently the rate is 17 per cent. Does my hon. Friend intend to campaign for an increase to 35 per cent.?

Mr. Lamont: I do not want to quote details of individual figures and the House would be amazed if I did. That would be a remarkable step in the middle of negotiations. We have made it clear that there should be an increase in the intervention fund level.
There are grounds for concern about the order book. We need to secure orders to prevent a gap in the present work loads. For that reason the chairman of British Shipbuilders has outlined a number of potential orders that could fill the gaps.
The House will understand that because of commercial confidentiality I cannot discuss the individual orders or the terms on which such orders might be obtained. However, I can confirm that British Shipbuilders is dealing with a far higher level of inquiries than it was a year ago. It has given me a list of potential orders totalling 159,000 compensated gross registered tonnes. It remains confident that with suitable support it can secure the planned total of orders of 200,000 compensated gross registered tonnes. We remain in close touch with British Shipbuilders and we shall give all the support that we can to achieve those orders.
The Opposition may not like the principles in the EEC's fifth directive. They may not like the idea that the EEC has some say in the aid that we give to our industry. However, they accepted the principle when, in a flash of European enthusiasm, they accepted the fourth directive. With that went the principle of reducing subsidies to shipbuilding. They were right. Subsidies are not at the heart of the problem. Subsidies are not the answer.
The differing nature of aid in different countries makes it difficult to make exact comparisons. West Germany, Denmark and Belgium give smaller production subsidies than we do. The success of Finland's shipbuilding industry


is much publicised here, not least after the launching of the Royal Princess. That ship was built and delivered by a private sector yard that pays high wages and receives no subsidy.
The Opposition spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, constantly reminds us that there is no free market in shipbuilding. That is true. We understand that, but it does not absolve us or the industry from the need to improve efficiency and productivity. It is not correct to say that the answer lies in more and more subsidy by the Government.
One of the ways in which British Shipbuilders can become more competitive is, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman hinted, in adopting a sensible product strategy. In the past British Shipbuilders, although only a small builder on a world scale, has tried to cover the whole market range. The result was a product range comparable with that of the old British Leyland. Far too many designs chased far too many orders. For that reason we welcome Graham Day's determination to implement a practical and realistic product strategy. Realistically and rightly he recognises that the United Kingdom cannot hope to compete with huge far eastern yards in building the largest ships— the very large crude carriers and the bulk carriers.
If British Shipbuilders attempts to cover all the markets it will fail to satisfy any of them adequately. For that reason the corporation is reshaping its product strategy. The emphasis will be on fewer basic designs but it will offer tailor-made packages around those designs to satisfy individual customers.
British Shipbuilders is concentrating its marketing efforts on the most promising growth areas such as vessels for offshore work in which it has substantial expertise. With the Stena ships at Sunderland it has two advanced vessels under construction.
Product development is a continuing requirement. British Shipbuilders has set up a number of product development groups to take the strategy through from conception to design, product engineering, production planning and to marketing. That is the right approach for a commercial, competitive shipbuilder in the 1980s. It demonstrates that the industry needs thought, planning and policies and not simply throwing more money at it. The corporation is adopting that approach.

Mr. John Smith: I expected the Minister to make some comment on Sir Robert Atkinson's views. Does he admit that it is a matter of serious anxiety when a former chairman of British Shipbuilders has such a low opinion of the Government's commitment to the industry and their current plans for its future?

Mr. Lamont: I totally disagree with Sir Robert Atkinson. The Government are committed to maintain the maximum competitive and efficient shipbuilding industry. However, we are not prepared to throw endless sums of money at the industry. I was not clear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman advocated, but he seemed to say that we should throw even larger sums of money at the industry.
If British Shipbuilders can win orders, the yards' work load will stretch through the best part of next year and beyond. It will be able to look forward to a more stable

period during which it can continue to make the changes necessary to improve competitiveness. It will gain the orders only if it can satisfy customers' needs.
That also applies to engine building. British Shipbuilders has been forced to rationalise and to restructure facilities to bring capacity more closely into line with demand. The announcement by British Shipbuilders earlier this month about the formation of a new company, Clark Kincaid Ltd, with sites in Greenock and Wallsend, marks the culmination of the current rationalisation programme. It is important that its engine-building capacity should not get out of line with potential demand determined by the order book. The order book is as crucial for engine building as it is for the merchant yards.
Since July the Ministry of Defence has announced the award of a number of major warship orders. They include a nuclear submarine at Vickers, a replacement for the Sir Galahad at Swan Hunter and the first of the new type 23 frigates at Yarrow. A total of 32 ships are under construction in British yards— at British Shipbuilders and the private sector. They have a total value at today's prices of £2,800 million.
In addition, a number of other potential orders are in the pipeline to meet the Navy's requirements under the defence programme. The most imminent is the order for the type 22 frigates, for which the Ministry is currently evaluating tenders from three yards. I appreciate the keen interest and anxiety at the length of time that this is taking. The Secretary of State for Defence hopes to be able to announce his decisions before the end of the year.

Sir David Price: The tenders were originally required by last October. When I took a deputation to the Minister I was told that they should be in by last Christmas. It is now nearly a year later and I received a written reply today which merely says that the time elapsed merely because the Minister allowed it to.

Mr. Lamont: I suggest that my hon. Friend addresses his remarks to the Secretary of State. I appreciate his anxiety, but I have given the best information that I have.
British Shipbuilders has already told the unions, when warning them of the present redundancies, that they clearly need to keep the numbers employed at the warship yards under review in the light of developments in the order book. There clearly remains some uncertainty about the precise levels of demand in different yards, but the picture for the warship yards is far from discouraging.
I turn to the question of privatisation.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: rose—

Mr. Lamont: I shall not give way.
British Shipbuilders is making progress on privatisation. It has already issued the offer for sale document for Brooke Marine. It intends to do the same for Hall Russell and Yarrow before the end of the year. We hope that the other yards will follow early in the new year. The Government's intention, wherever possible, is to sell the yards to purchasers who intend to continue shipbuilding and who can demonstrate that they have the necessary skills and finance.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lamont: I shall not give way.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister gave way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone). Why will he not give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North?

Mr. Lamont: This is a short debate, and I have given way several times.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On that point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The Minister is obviously not giving way.

Mr. Lamont: That would be a good policy to follow.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: rose—

Mr. Lamont: I give way even to Tories on the other side. [Interruption.] I am sure that the whole House will listen to what I have to say about privatisation. It may, in some instances, be possible to have management by buyouts. We are also attracted to the idea of an element of employee participation, just as happened in the National Freight Corporation. That amounts to real public ownership. We do not intend, however, that that should be an obligation.
Final decisions will be made on an examination of the skills, the finance and the terms of the contract between British Shipbuilders and the purchasers. We shall hold in reserve the possibility of a flotation for either some or all of the yards, if necessary. We believe that privatisation holds out the hope of a more efficient industry, just as privatisation has helped to make ship repair more efficient. A number of ship repair yards which have come out of British Shipbuilders have improved their order books. They are not yet out of the wood but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) will know, they have a remarkably improved prospect. We believe that privatisation holds out the hope of a better future both in wages and jobs for those who work in the industry.
We expect that British Shipbuilders will be able to adhere to the timetable we have set and to complete privatisation by the end of March 1986. It should now be clear to the whole House that the Opposition's motion is misconceived and has no basis. The motion refers to shipbuilding as a whole—warship building as well as merchant shipbuilding—and to recent redundancies. The most recent redundancies have been those to which the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East referred—in the warship building side. It is wrong to talk of a crisis in warship building. Warship builders earn their living by meeting the needs of the Royal Navy and by exporting naval craft. The recent redundancies reflect the sad fact that we have more capacity than is needed for the naval programme. We have been unable to fill that gap by export orders, as we used to do when those companies were in private ownership. Perhaps, when the yards are returned to private ownership, we shall manage again to recapture some of those export orders.
The position of the merchant yards in Britain is more difficult, as it is all over the world.
Shipbuilding industries all over the world from Japan to Sweden are accepting the inevitability of contraction, and Britain cannot be insulated from this world trend."—[Official Report, 24 February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1652–53.]
Those are not my words; they are the words of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Events from the Opposition Benches are better seen in perspective when standing on their heads. The Opposition are not only standing on their heads in what they say in this

debate but are a little late in demanding action. We are already taking action. We are continuing to provide the essential support which the industry needs. We have appointed a chairman who is prepared at long last to tackle the problems of inefficiency and uncompetitiveness. We are seeking agreement from the Commission for improved intervention fund support. We are backing the industry to win new orders.
British Shipbuilders needs the recognition and support of the House for what it is doing to make the industry more competitive. The House should welcome the support that the Government are giving to the industry. The House should welcome also the Government's decision to return the warship yards to the private sector. Above all, we do not need the motion tabled by the Opposition. I invite ray right hon. and hon. Friends to reject it and to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my hon. Friends.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I reinforce Mr. Speaker's appeal for brief speeches, because a number of hon. Members with strong constituency interests are anxious to catch my eye.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: As an example of complacency, the Minister of State has surpassed himself in talking about the extremely difficult position of the shipbuilding industry. His only solution appears to be privatisation. The hon. Gentleman rounded off his speech with a statement about how privatisation will save the industry. I remind him of a bit of history. When Court Lines collapsed and Sunderland Shipbuilders almost went down, it took a Labour Government to nationalise the yard way ahead of nationalisation and to save the yard from the private sector. That is a piece of history which shows how that yard was saved. The Minister's complacency in referring to privatisation saving the industry is rubbish.
I hoped that the Minister would come forward with more factual information to help the House and the industry with something a little more practical, but the hon. Gentleman failed dismally. We do not need a lecture about the state of shipbuilding throughout the world. One need only look at order books around the world to see that the Japanese and Koreans are cornering the market and that British Shipbuilders is not the only body to suffer. All the European yards are suffering at the same time. We need to make up our minds whether we want a shipbuilding industry, and that is the question that the Minister should be posing to himself. Can we, as an island trading nation, afford to go down that nick? Frankly, I suggest that we cannot go down that line.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) spoke of a maritime policy, and I hoped that the Minister would say something about that. Unless we have some sort of maritime policy which does not leave shipbuilding on its own to market forces without considering shipping as well, the shipbuilding industry is doomed, especially if it looks to the Government for help. During the past nine years, British shipbuilding has more than halved. Some European countries are in an even worse position. The yards in Norway and Holland have few orders on their books. Some yards have no orders.
We can examine the operations in other countries which are not, by any stretch of the imagination, well off. Most


of the orders in the Italian shipyards are from Italian shipowners; most of the orders in the French shipyards are from French shipowners; most of the orders in the German shipyards are from German shipowners; and most of those in the Dutch shipyards are from Dutch shipowners. With the exception of three CEGB colliers, which are being built at Govan Shipbuilders, not one ship order has been placed in British shipyards. The only exceptions are those connected with oil exploration.
I accept that the Minister faces problems involving the confidentiality of the order books of British Shipbuilders which limits how much he can tell the House. British Shipbuilders is doing a first-class job. I agree with the first part of the Government amendment. British Shipbuilders is stumping the world looking for orders, but it needs backing from the Government. I am glad that the Minister is fighting for a larger intervention fund, but there are other sources of finance available for building ships. We have been stumping the Third world, and it is not easy to get orders there, because of difficulties over prices, credit, and so on. The Government could take immediate action to help the shipbuilding industry.
I should like to be able to take the Minister of State on trust. He said that there were a number of orders in the pipeline for British Shipbuilders, but that he could not tell us what they were and that we ought to trust him. The work force at Austin and Pickersgill does not have time to trust the hon. Gentleman. Lay-offs and redundancies at the yard will be announced this weekend because the order book is practically empty. That is one of the finest yards in Britain—enclosed, modernised and with a work force which has gone along with all the things that the Minister talked about, has agreed to the removal of almost all lines of demarcation and delivers ships on time.
There are orders in the pipeline, wating for the Government to give the go-ahead. We have recently built two ships for Ethiopia, which requires two more. Those orders are there for the taking. The first ship went into service in Ethiopia this week, and the purchasers are highly satisfied with it. Ethiopia is paying thousands of dollars a day for six charter ships. It wants to replace them with its own ships. It has had two from Austin and Pickersgill and two from Italy. Two more are wanted from Austin and Pickersgill.
The Minister knows that there is a section 2 grant application on his desk. Is it being blocked? If the Ethiopian orders are placed now, the Austin and Pickersgill work force will not have to be laid off and there need be no talk of redundancies. That is a positive way in which the Government could help.
I advised the Department of Trade and Industry that I would raise these matters in the debate, and I hoped that the Minister of State would mention at least the Ethiopian orders. They are vital to Sunderland, where we have 24 per cent. unemployment. It is essential that we do not add to that unemployment.
There is another order in the pipeline. I understand— I put it no higher than that, though I have checked with the Overseas Development Administration— that another ship could be ordered by the Government—the order is wholly in the Government's gift— for overseas development and that only Austin and Pickersgill could fit out that ship. It is an SD14 that is to be modified for the St. Helena shipping company to include facilities for

passenger travel. I am told that the order has to be looked at by a project committee that will have to consider what sort of cabins to install and so on. Someone ought to get his finger out. This is an urgent matter, because that order could keep the work force in my constituency in work. There are ships that could be ordered now.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bagier: No. This is a short debate and I am challenging the Minister of State. If he wishes to reply, I shall gladly give way to him.
I know that some of my hon. Friends, especially from Tyneside, will want to discuss the ridiculous suggestion that the naval yards should be privatised.
The Minister's speech was extremely complacent. I want to hear from the Government at the earliest opportunity what will be done about orders for Sunderland and when the Government will plan a maritime policy that covers not only shipbuilding, but shipping, so that we can have British ships built in British yards.

Mr. Neville Trotter: We are indeed facing a worldwide problem, but that does not make it any less serious for those of us in the north-east who are facing a crisis. If we do not get orders within weeks, there will be more redundancies in the region. Our debate takes place against that short-term background.
In the longer term, it is important to remember the commitment to the industry made tonight by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. That commitment has been made before, but it needs to be repeated, because it is inevitable that people faced with a short-term crisis will have doubts about future support for the industry. I do not believe that the Government can be faulted in the financial help that they have given—£1,130 million. The industry has had great support from the Government and we have a continuing commitment for the future. I believe that the Government will honour that commitment, but that does not prevent short-term fears and worries, particularly in the north-east.
Like the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier), I have heard it suggested that there may be an SD14 order coming from St. Helena. If so, it should be brought forward within the next few weeks. It would be ridiculous to get the order next year when we are facing redundancies now that could be avoided.

Mr. Sayeed: The point that I wanted to put to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) was that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and I went to St. Helena and recommended to the Overseas Development Administration that option 2B of the ECL report should be taken up. That option proposes an SD14 with accommodation for 150 to 200 passengers. The order is in the gift of the Government, it is needed for shipbuilding in this country and it is the right option for St. Helena.

Mr. Trotter: I also understand that the ship that has been running the service is out of action following a fire on board. Perhaps the owners need a new ship as urgently as the builders need one.
In the short term, there is also the continuing problem of who is to get the order for the type 22 frigates. The Minister of State reminded us that the matter has been kicked around for well over a year. If we are to have a


force of about 50 frigates, which seems to be the figure to which we are committed, and if we do not intend to spend two or three years modernising each of them in the naval dockyards, we shall need to order about three frigates in a year so that we can maintain the number in operation. Therefore, it is high time that we placed the orders for the type 22. Let us have them before the end of the year. If we do not have an announcement by then, there will be more redundancies in the warship building yards. There is a short-term crisis for jobs in the north-east and the Government can and must take action to help with that problem.
We need to speed up the consideration given to the matching of financial terms. In the present state of the world market, our overseas competitors often offer good bargains, and, although the Export Credits Guarantee Department may agree to match those bargains, orders can be lost because the ECGD does not take its decision quickly enough. It is no good eventually matching a competitor's terms if it is too late. I do not know the details, but perhaps such considerations apply in the case of the ships for Ethiopia and some for Mexico which may also be available.
The problems of the immediate future are extremely serious, but I believe that answers will be found within the next few weeks. In the longer term, there is no doubt that we shall retain a warship building industry, but we must also have a hard core of merchant shipbuilding capability. I believe that we are now close to that hard core and it is time, after all that our industry has gone through—in common with the other shipbuilding industries in Europe— that we developed a long-term plan for merchant shipbuilding in this country.
One of the problems is the intervention fund. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his sterling efforts in fighting against the people in Europe who do not agree with us on the subject. They have perhaps other ways of financing their shipbuilders. I understand my hon. Friend's not wanting to commit himself on the suggested figure of 35 per cent. mentioned earlier in the debate, but it is a simple statement of arithmetic. Unless there is that percentage of aid, there will be hardly any orders. That seems to be the level of assistance that is needed if we in Britain and the rest of Europe are to match the competition from the far east.
We cannot be optimistic about far east competition. In my judgment, it will get worse. China is looming on the horizon in the longer term as a builder of ships. In debates in this House a few years ago, when the main problem was competition from Japan, I suggested that there would soon be a problem with competition from Korea. That has proved correct. Sadly I now prophesy that China will soon be a serious competitor, with very low labour costs. That will make it very difficult for western shipbuilders to compete without maximum efficiency and a proper degree of public support.
In talking of Britain's strategic interests in shipbuilding, it is fair to mention that it is not simply the shipyards that are involved but the suppliers of pieces of ships all over Britain. The House is well aware of my interests in the marine equipment industry. There is no doubt that for every person engaged in assembling a ship in our shipyards there are three more people in factories making the parts. The firms concerned have done reasonably well in the export market because they are able to export parts of ships to foreign builders, especially in the far east, but they need

a home base. If there is no hard core of shipbuilding in Britain, the marine equipment industry will have a very hard future.
I should like to say a word or two on behalf of the small shipbuilder. I am sure that British Shipbuilders, through its contacts with Ministry officials, has close contact with those handling the Community rules, but small shipbuilders do not have that ready access. They cannot sort out their problems by picking up the telephone. It is especially difficult for the small shipbuilders if we are still tied officially to the 15 per cent. or 17 per cent. intervention fund limit. It is very hard for them to obtain orders if they cannot give quotations to their customers in the knowledge that they are assured of reasonable assistance.
I congratulate the Government on the substantial support that they have given to the shipbuilding industry in the past five years, and I congratulate them on their commitment for the future. But we need the maximum assistance in the next few weeks to enable us to obtain orders and to maintain our skills and employment in the north-east. We also need, in the near future, a long-term plan for the merchant ship building industry.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: The speech of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) illustrates how wrong the Minister was to dismiss the criticisms made from the Opposition Benches. Understandably, the hon. Gentleman, coming from Tyneside, made exactly the same sorts of criticisms and pleas to the Minister as were brushed aside in the Minister's speech.
I represent a part of the north-east where the Tees, one of the three rivers, has almost no shipbuilding left. We have Smith's Dock, and that is the last vestige of a great shipbuilding industry on our river. In other parts of the region—other hon. Members can testify to it—the same dreadful slide to oblivion is taking place.
This evening the Minister served the House with the usual diet of jam tomorrow. He assured us that the Government are following all the right policies and that everything will be all right at the end of the day. The Minister's speech will bring precious little consolation to the shipyards on Tyneside, Wearside, the Clyde and other parts of the country. They are tired of hearing that there will be jam tomorrow. They are tired of the way that the Government are carving up the industry while they are breaking their backs in trying to make a success of it. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) said, that is particularly true of the north-eastern region, where people scrapped their summer holidays to get a ship launched on time. They have broken their backs in trying to succeed, but all they are getting from the Government is the eternal assertion that privatisation is the answer, that no more subsidies can be given, and that it is a question of market forces, when we all know that there are no market forces operating in the industry and have not been for years.
I am very disappointed with the Minister's speech and I echo what other hon. Members have said. He should not have dismissed the remarks of the former chairman of British Shipbuilders in the way that he did. He should have given a proper reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who made the accusation that our shipbuilding industry is getting into an


unviable state. Those remarks were echoed by the hon. Member for Tynemouth. The Minister should not brush the accusations aside, and I hope that in the reply to the debate the Minister will tell us the Government's views on the current state of the British shipbuilding industry and how they think it will be able to remain as a viable force, not only in providing a merchant marine, which the trading interests of the country require, but in meeting our defence interests.
In the shipbuilding industry, as with so many other industries in regions such as the north and north-east, we can see the chickens coming home to roost. It is an inevitable consequence of the Government's economic policies, pursued since they came into office in 1979. There is no demand for the products of the shipbuilding yards, and the Government have taken very little action internationally to stimulate demand in the world economy, which is vitally important in getting the orders that the industry so desperately needs. As a consequence, there are major question marks hanging over large sections of the industry.
The Government's answer to the problem is to sell off the profitable warship yards and to have the management of British Shipbuilders spending time not on getting orders, improving efficiency and having a competitive industry, but on privatisation. I have worked in nationalised industry and I have seen at first hand how management's time is spent in dealing with Government interference and the ideological hang-ups of Governments who try to determine the objectives of the industry. The management and the work force are deflected by that interference from their true objectives— to make the industry a success.
The Government must bear a heavy responsibility for distracting the management and work force of British Shipbuilders and of the shipbuilding industry from the major problems facing them, and for concentrating instead on the privatisation programme. The Government should drop that programme and let the management get on with the task of facing the major problems that arise from international competition and the low demand in the domestic and international economy. Great damage is being done to what was formerly a great industry. As the damage to employment in the region grows in the months ahead, one hopes that the Government will begin to understand the results of their policies.
The fear remains that the Government do not accept that there are large sections of manufacturing industry which can and should remain in operation. Since 1979, when the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was Secretary of State for Industry, many of us have held the view that there were members of the Administration who did not believe that historically Britain could sustain a manufacturing industry. What has happened to the shipbuilding industry is a major example of that aspect of Government policy. It is a sad fact that that should be so, and it is not surprising that the work force in the shipbuilding yards around the country believes that that is true, when there is so much evidence of it, not only in that industry but in so many other sectors of manufacturing industry.
I should like to say a word on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) about the Hall Russell yard. I hope that the Minister will give a much better

assurance than he has so far. I should like to see him drop the proposal for selling such profitable businesses. However, if he is to allow British Shipbuilders to go ahead and sell that yard, I hope that he will go further than saying that he hopes that it will be sold to a shipbuilding enterprise, and not for North sea work. It is necessary for that area to have a continuing shipbuilding industry when the offshore work dries up. I hope that the Minister will give a firm commitment on that point.
I should like to refer to the viability of the industry. It is a crucial point for the whole of our trading and economic interests. It is vital that this country above all, with its maritime interests, should have a clear commitment to a maritime policy and a viable shipbuilding and shipping industry. I echo and agree with the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and others about the great question mark hanging over the industry.
However, it is question not just of this country's economic and trading interests but of its defence interests. Our defence capability is not just reliant upon warships. It also depends upon the merchant marine. Nowhere could that have been clearer than in the Falklands dispute. The Government should have learnt that lesson, if no one else has. Merchant ships are just as vital to our defence as warships, especially if we intend to develop the strength to provide a credible non-nuclear deterrent beyond the 30 days of war stocks now being built up by NATO. That requires the merchant ship numbers, types and capacities to maintain world-wide economic shipping, military reinforcement, resupply shipping and shipping in support of military operations, together with a substantial surplus to make good losses. Ship repair and new building capacity is essential on top of that if we are to sustain the defence.
Therefore, there is a much bigger argument about the industry's viability than simply this country's trading and economic interests. There is also the defence question, to which I hope the Minister will address himself. I hope that he will not shuffle it off to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, but reply to that point as we are debating such an important matter.
I hope that the House will support the motion tabled by the Labour party. My colleagues and I will do so wholeheartedly. We look to the Minister to give us more reassurance than his colleague the Minister of State did when he spoke earlier.

Mr. Piers Merchant: As time is so limited, I propose to make only a few brief points. However, I feel bound to speak on this occasion in view of my direct constituency interest, representing a Tyneside seat in an area traditionally dependent on shipbuilding.
The once great strength of yards on the Tyne brought in the past wealth, employment and enterprise to the city of Newcastle. Even as recently as 10 years ago, 35,000 jobs were sustained on Tyneside and Wearside in the shipbuilding yards. Ten years before that, the figure was nearer 44,000. Today, taking into account recently annouced redundancies, the figure is less than 14,000. In 1926, British shipyards produced about 40 per cent. of world demand. Today the figure is about 2 per cent. The industry is being decimated, and needlessly so. I say "needlessly" because the process is not inevitable. I do not subscribe to the view that the rundown of the shipbuilding


industry is unavoidable. I do not believe that we must necessarily give up the old heavy industries as part of a historical process and restructure our industry solely along the lines of new technology, electronics and service supplies. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) on that point.
Of course, it is eminently sensible for a region and a nation to diversify as widely as possible, and it is highly dangerous to concentrate and specialise overmuch. The Tyne— and the Northern region as a whole, for that matter— suffers from its failure to diversify over the years. Thus the shipbuilding crisis becomes more intense. However, that is a different argument.
My point is that, even in an admitted world recession and a dire shortage in the world of ship orders following a huge contraction world-wide, shipbuilding industries in some countries seem able to flourish and even to expand. Why cannot our industry flourish as well or at least hold its position in comparison with other countries?
It would be easy to find a single scapegoat. The circumstances almost cry out for scapegoat politics. Many Opposition Members find it all too easy to discover a scapegoat. Privatisation appears to be the latest one. However, I fear that the answer is not that simple. In fact, many are to blame for the present situation in British yards.
Before nationalisation, management was hardly an inspiring force powered by bright young entrepreneurs. Their attitude to management was all too often summed up not so much by the modernistic approach of, say, Japanese managers as by the worst attitudes of industrial defeatism— innovative necrosis, under-capitalisation, organisational chaos, and often contempt for their work force, which was more characteristic of the worst aspects of 19th century industrial relations than of the 20th, let alone 21st century. Then came the hand of state interference in the shape of nationalisation, a shake-up that hit the industry at a vulnerable time in a particularly painful way. It resulted in preventing an early and swift response to recession, which might have breathed life into the industry at the most critical moment.
However, finally and never to be underestimated was the effect of industrial unrest that racked the Tyne yards. The irresponsibility and short-sightedness of union leaders are widely recognised on Tyneside as constituting one of the worst records that the region can summon up anywhere. Time and again delayed orders, strikes— [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—restrictive practices and poor productivity took their toll. Opposition Members know that fine well. Investment did not come because who would invest in an industry that itself seemed not to want a future? It is sad to see today that the price is being paid that many predicted five or 10 years ago would have to be paid. The sectarian narrowness of union leaders over this decade has contributed largely to the unemployment created in the past few years.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Gentleman must reconsider what he is saying because he is talking drivel. He must either reconsider it or cite some examples.

Mr. Merchant: The hon. Gentleman asks for examples. I shall cite some of the situations of the past few weeks. We are talking not just about industrial disputes over the past five or 10 years, from which one would think

the union leaders would learn, but about industrial disputes that have occurred in the past few months in the Wearside and Tyneside yards. I shall quote from a report of 29 September in The Journal. It refers to:
Sunderland Shipbuilders where 1,900 manual workers at three yards are in the fourth day of a strike following a new pay deal for 28 crane drivers. The strikers say if it can be done for the crane men, the rest of the workforce ought to have a new agreement too …
Clark Hawthorn, Watlsend where 400 workers are staging token strikes in protest against nine months of short-time working …
British Shipbuilders (Engineering and Technical Services), Sunderland, where 36 workers are staging a sit-in in protest against manning levels, flexibility arrangements and pay following 18 recent redundancies …A fourth dispute— an overtime ban by 1,800 men at Swan Hunter's Neptune Yard on the Tyne".
At a critical moment in the life of the industry, four disputes were running at the same time. If that can be justified, anything can be justified. The sectarian narrowness of union leaders for an entire decade has contributed greatly to the high level of unemployment and to the increase in unemployment that, regrettably, those yards are now experiencing.
It is time that everyone realised that all those faults must be tackled. The damage has already cut so deep that it will not be easy to put things right. Certainly it cannot be done overnight. How much healthier it would be to hear some positive voices from the Opposition and, perhaps more relevantly, from those who lead the men in the yards. I have catalogued disputes that have taken place in the past few weeks. The saddest perhaps was the dispute at the yard building the Atlantic Conveyor, an order specially provided to help the Tyneside yards despite better tenders elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he was pleased that that dispute had ended, but in 1984 such disputes should never even start. Everyone in the industry must pull together to prove that British shipbuilding can be competitive, productive and profitable. That, in turn, will attract new investment.
In the short term, I entirely endorse the request made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) for the swift placing of orders that are within the Government's gift. Nevertheless, I believe that the long-term solutions lie not with the House or even in the realm of politics. As with the rest of British industry, the answers lie fundamentally and ultimately in the attitudes and endeavours of both the work force and the management of the industry itself.

Mr. Ernie Ross: We do not intend that the debate should concern only the thoroughly unnecessary redundancies announced last week, although we are 100 per cent. behind those workers fighting for their jobs. Conservative Members should read the Opposition motion, which continues the campaign that we have waged on behalf of the shipbuilding industry since 1979. We have always stressed that there are problems in the industry worldwide—a stagnant market and competition from the far east where the Japanese and Koreans undercut our prices by huge margins.
When the industry was nationalised in 1979 it was almost bankrupt. The nation inherited problems of overcapacity and in some cases overmanning. Machinery and equipment were out of date due to lack of investment


by private owners. Yet Conservative Members want to give back to those people the parts of the industry now making a profit in the forlorn hope that they will keep it running and making profits. The nation also inherited a poor industrial relations situation. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) that this was and is mainly due to bad management without any real commitment to the industry.
Unlike Conservative Members, the trade unions have put enormous effort into tackling those problems. The trade union movement accepted changes which meant a reduction in capacity and the loss of 20,000 jobs. The number of bargaining units was reduced from 168 to one so that our commitment to the industry could be based on an overall wage agreement, and, instead of envying and competing with one another, workers in the various yards could work together to produce an industry able to compete with foreign industries. The shipyard workers have made great sacrifices, but those sacrifices have never been acknowledged or reciprocated. Management has remained intransigent and in many cases anti-nationalisation, which has been thoroughly unhelpful and sometimes actually destructive.
Workers in the industry have faced periods of great insecurity. Thousands of jobs have been axed and the threats of redundancy and privatisation have hung over the industry since the Conservative Government came to power. Meanwhile, the wages of skilled workers in the shipyards have fallen from fourth to twentieth in the league table. The Minister, who is no longer present, called on us to encourage our colleagues in the industry to make a further commitment in the recent wage negotiations. We took up the challenge and discussed it with our colleagues in the shipyards, and they made that commitment. But what has been their reward? There has certainly been no reward for the constituents of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, who have recently been made redundant or whose redundancy is imminent. The workers in the industry have constantly made commitments on wages and conditions, but the Minister failed to acknowledge that today.
Unfortunately, neither the Government nor the management have brought the same commitment to the industry. The trade unions recognised from the outset that co-operation was needed if the industry was to survive, but the co-operation has been all on one side. That is why there is now bitterness and disillusion in many areas of the industry. The workers and their trade unions have put forward constructive proposals to both Government and management over many years, but they have been almost entirely ignored.
We have consistently argued that Britain, as an island nation, needs ships for both trade and defence. That being so, we must plan and control the management of that sector through a maritime agency. We must ensure that United Kingdom owners buy ships from United Kingdom yards. The industry is competing with companies abroad which are receiving far more support from their Governments. In the past 36 years, not one Japanese domestic order has gone to a yard outside Japan. That is the kind of commitment that our shipbuilding industry needs from British owners.
We also need more flexible application of the intervention fund. Even if the Minister cannot give the

figures, perhaps he will tell us whether the flexibility secured from the EEC is on the lines called for by British Shipbuilders, allowing unused funds to be carried forward to support the winning of further orders. Just how flexible is the intervention fund to be?
As we have pointed out before, British industry has lost the ability to design engines, which represent 15 per cent. of the cost of any order. We used to be good at that, but we lost that capacity in 1979. We now have only the slow-speed engines from Clark Kincaid. It is ridiculous that after spending £4·5 million on plant and machinery only 12 years ago that capacity is now lying idle and it is intended to close it down.
The story of shipbuilding in this country since the Conservative Government took office is appalling. The Government's actions have been based on ignorance and political prejudice. In 1950, the United Kingdom held nearly 20 per cent. of the world market. Today it has about 3 per cent. Last year the United Kingdom won only 1 per cent. of world orders. This year we expect perhaps 2 per cent. We all know what that has done to the work force.
Most yards are located in areas of high unemployment—the Clyde, the Tyne and the north-west. However, our argument is not based on keeping open an outdated industry for the sake of it. The introduction of new technology offers many possibilities to shipbuilding, which is an integral part of our manufacturing base. It creates wealth and generates economic activity. Instead of closing down yards, we should train our young people to participate in an advanced manufacturing industry.
What we see in the shipbuilding industry exemplifies the Government's determination to erode Britain's manufacturing base. Last year, for the first time since the industrial revolution, Britain had a deficit in trade in manufactured goods. That happened despite the fact that the vast resources of North sea oil were at the disposal of the Government. The Government have squandered that wealth. Without that oil, the trade balance and the economic pointers would have looked very much worse. In the three months to June this year, output fell by 3 per cent. compared with the first quarter of 1984, showing almost no improvement when compared with a year earlier.
We do not ask for the shipbuilding industry to be cosseted. We ask for a chance to compete fairly with other countries, including EEC countries, which recognise that shipbuilding has a prime role to play in building up the economic and industrial base.
It is ludicrous that an island nation should be prepared to abandon an industry crucial to its trading health and defence capability. The Secretary of State for Defence has announced cuts which are necessary in defence spending. There is doubt that new warships are needed by the Navy. Yet billions of pounds are squandered on Trident and cruise. The Government have rammed their inglorious escapade in the south Atlantic down our throats, but they are now failing to put their alleged patriotism into practice. They hesitate to ensure that we have viable merchant and defence fleets.
We need support not for a dying industry but for one which is being stifled. Other Governments recognise the importance of the shipbuilding industry and take steps to ensure its survival; our Government do not.
We have put forward positive proposals. We have suggested reserving the coastal trade and the offshore supply sector for vessels flying the United Kingdom flag.
We have said that we should ensure that coastal shipping users receive the same financial support as rail and inland waterway users. We have argued for supporting our shipyards to the same extent as foreign shipyards are supported by their Governments. We have demanded that British vessels should be required to be built and repaired in British shipyards. We have said there is a need to regulate working time for seafarers in coastal shipping.
The Opposition have put forward all those proposals, but all that we have heard from the Government is the repeated claim that they are helping the industry. Those who run, or used to run, the industry do not accept that claim. Those who work in the industry do not accept it. The towns, villages and cities that have been, or are about to be, hit by redundancies do not accept it. I am sure that when Conservative Members go into the Lobby at the end of the debate they will not have been convinced that the Government support British shipbuilding.

Mr. Cecil Franks: There are many hon. Members in all parts of the House who represent shipbuilding constituencies where the shipyards face the future with considerable apprehension and fear. However, it would be wrong to allow the impression to be given that the picture is the same throughout the country. There are shipyards that face the future with optimism. Equally, we should not allow ourselves to be misled about the reasons for the parlous state of British shipbuilding, which is almost entirely due to the disastrous combination of appalling management, the Luddite mentality of the shipbuilding trade unions and a totally undisciplined work force. That disastrous combination has brought about the state of affairs that the Opposition complained about.
We can talk as much as we like about what should be done, but unless we can improve the management and the trade union leadership and bring discipline back to the work force our words will remain mere words.
Warships have been built for the best part of a century in Barrow and Furness. During that period, prosperity has ebbed and flowed. However, 20 years ago, the Vickers management took the decision to specialise and to concentrate on building submarines. That decision was due to the foresight of the then chairman of Vickers Shipbuilding, Sir Leonard Redshaw. Vickers concentrated on that sector, and although it built and launched HMS Invincible, Vickers accepted that that lay in the past and that submarine building lay in the future. Barrow shipyards were the home of the first Polaris submarine, and Trident is now being designed and is in the early stages of construction. However, what has happened in Barrow has not been matched elsewhere.
I should like to give a parallel. This afternoon I had a meeting with representatives of certain vested interests in my constituency who came to lobby me about the Government's bus policy—a topic which will no doubt consume much of our time in the future. The representatives were the chairman of my localmunicipal transport committee, the chairman of the local Transport and General Workers Union branch and his secretary and the AUEW branch secretary. I told them that they would have to accept that they would be in competition, and they replied that the competition would be unfair and that they would not be able to compete. When I asked why, they said that there were wage and hour agreements with the trade unions. I said, "I am sorry, but this is a different ball

game. My prime concern is with the consumer— the man who pays his fare. If you have problems with the trade unions, they are for you to sort out. We are living in a competitive world." The same is true with shipbuilding. There is a world of difference between the Government and the Opposition. If one strips aside the philosophies of Socialism and capitalism, one sees that the Opposition are primarily concerned with the interests of the producer and that the Government are primarily concerned with the interests of the consumer. The Opposition cannot comprehend that if there is no consumer there is nothing for the producers to produce.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With respect, the debate is about shipbuilding, not about buses. We all know that there is only one consumer of submarines—the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. Time is short, and we must get on with the debate.

Mr. Franks: What the hon. Gentleman says is not correct. Vickers have to earn export orders, and there is considerable competition in that area. There is also competition from shipyards in Britain which would dearly love to build conventional submarines. Barrow is in competition and there will be even greater competition after privatisation, but there will be greater opportunity. We are not afraid of privatisation; we are confident. We in south-west Cumbria ask ourselves why should we have had to suffer a wage freeze when we have made profits of £21 million? We are the only part of British Shipbuilders that has been consistently successful. Why should we have to suffer because of the nonsense that has gone on in Clydeside and Merseyside? Tyneside and Wearside are a little better. Why should we be held back when we have good management, a loyal work force and a successful product? Why should we be held back because other parts of the industry have no wish to survive and, frankly, do not deserve to survive?
Barrow and Furness welcomes privatisation and looks forward to its prosperity continuing to grow. We welcome privatisation— managers and labour— and the Government will give us our opportunity.

Mr. Frank Field: If all our shipyards had order books the length of the Barrow order book, we would be able to give a very different message tonight. I do not want to denigrate any of the work done at Barrow. However, to turn up every day and to know that the order book extends way into the future is a very different experience from turning up each day, as many of my constituents do at Cammell Laird, knowing that the yard is on its last order. The House should bear that in mind when considering the different records in the shipbuilding industry.
I should like to give the Government three messages. They come not from me, but from my constituents. First, they are looking to this debate to get an answer to whether or not we are to have a viable shipbuilding industry. Linked to that they want to know whether the Government are bringing to the debate the urgency that reflects what is happening in our yards. The Government gave us an example of what they meant by urgency in the previous Parliament. My constituents test whether the Government consider a problem to be urgent by matching their action


with getting the task force ready for the Falklands. If we compare the Government's actions to safeguard the shipbuilding industry with their efforts to attend to that island way down in the south Atlantic, which most of us thought existed only on the front of postage stamps, the Government are found wanting.
My constituents cannot understand why the Government continue to let unemployment rise generally, and especially in the shipbuilding industry. They know the line that the Government take—that it is important to contain public expenditure, that that results in a cut in interest rates and that that encourages new business. However, by containing public expenditure, an increasing number of people are put out of work. As a result, more people draw the dole and thus public expenditure rises. The Government are caught in a vicious circle. My constituents are therefore looking for some common sense to be applied to the economics of the shipbuilding industry. We are not asking for more of the enthusiastic rant of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks). We do not want the slogans about the industry being denationalised and from that will come extra jobs. We are not interested in that; we are interested in protecting the jobs that we now have. We shall judge the Government on how well they reply in regard to protecting those jobs.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who is always listened to with respect. He said in his coded fashion— he usually presents a coded message to the Government— that they cannot be faulted on their financing of the industry. Nobody denies that that money now totals £1 billion. The Opposition's dispute has been how the £1 billion has been handed out. It has been given on a year-by-year basis, thus making it almost impossible for British Shipbuilders to plan a long-term future for the industry. We are pleading for a long-term perspective rather than endless short-term measures.

Mr. Trotter: The problem is that no one has been able to forecast demand for ships. People to whom I have spoken in the industry have been over-optimistic in their assessment of the number of orders that will be forthcoming. That has made it extremely difficult to plan for the industry.

Mr. Field: That has been part of the difficulty, but another part is the failure to bring forward orders from the public sector. My constituents want there to be urgency in bringing those orders forward and believe that money spent in securing those orders will protect their jobs, lay the basis for the shipbuilding industry of the future and play some part in giving the Government economic success. In those circumstances, fewer people would be drawing the dole and there would be less tendency to push up the public sector borrowing requirement. We have not yet heard from the Government an urgency that in any way matches the crisis of the shipbuilding industry.
The second message that my constituents want me to advance is that, if Cammell Laird is allowed to fold, that could be the end of a community in our area. Fewer than 2,000 people now work in the yard. Those jobs are important, but they are not the only ones at stake. There will be a knock-on effect to the small businesses that supply the yard. We have talked of a ratio of three jobs in outside industries being lost for every one that is lost in the

yard. Moreover, if we lose our yard, we shall lose the apprenticeship school and therefore the constant stream of skilled labour to the area. Will the Government walk away and let Cammell Laird close? Will they be like Pontius Pilate and wash their hands? If not, what hope have they to offer to my constituents before we divide at 10 o'clock?
Thirdly, my constituents want me to recall a theme that now constantly recurs in the Prime Minister's speeches around the country—the enemy within. My constituents want me to tell the Government that they agree with her, that there is an enemy within, but that it is the enemy of unemployment. They want to know what the Government are doing about that enemy which is tearing the heart and guts out of our constituencies and constituents. In Cammell Laird a large number of men have bravely gone against union advice, walked through picket lines and gone back to work. In short, they have done everything that the Government have asked them to do, and they want to know what the Government now intend to do for them. Will the Government just laugh in their faces, or will they come forward with some orders and so protect jobs?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are five hon. Members hoping to speak, and the winding-up speeches are expected to begin at 9.30 pm. We should all be happy if the five hon. Members would divide the time between them.

Mr. Christopher Chope (Southampton, lichen): I wish to address my comments to two parts of British Shipbuilders— Vosper Thornycroft and Vosper Shiprepairers. It is a sad blow for the people of Southampton to learn that there are to be 790 redundancies at Vosper Thornycroft. I am sure that everyone hopes that those redundancies will not have to be compulsory. Lack of orders has led to those redundancies. It is scandalous that the Government have delayed for so long on a decision about type 22 frigate orders. I cannot say that if the orders had been made last year it would not have been necessary to make so many men redundant but, on the evidence, that would appear to be the case. If the Government want two type 22 frigates, is there any justification for their having placed the orders in July 1983 and, even as I speak, not having reached a conclusion?
I hope that whichever yards win—obviously I put in a strong plea for Vosper Thornycroft— the announcement will be made before Christmas so that some people who work in the warship building sector of British Shipbuilders have a more cheerful Christmas than might otherwise be the case.
I am sure that the people of Southampton will sympathise with those in Vosper Thornycroft who are victims of market forces, as a result of which redundancies have arisen. I am also sure that people in Southampton are saying, "Is it not a pity that there are other people in Southampton who are determined to impose self-inflicted wounds?" I refer, of course, to the docks. Tomorrow there is to be a mass meeting of people employed in the docks in Southampton. I hope that they will come to their senses and realise that they, too, will be redundant unless they try to make the port competitive, as have workers in British Shipbuilders.
The privatisation of Vosper Thornycroft could not be any worse than the present situation, and I would expect


it to be much better. It would mean that the millstone around the neck of Vosper Thornycroft at the loss-making yards would be removed and that would allow the profits which have been made over the years to be reinvested. That would be a strong base from which to win fresh export orders.
The refit of the Indonesian frigates is an indication that export orders can be won by Vosper Thornycroft. If a quick decision is taken—I implore the Government to make it quick—on privatisation, I am sure that Vosper Thornycroft will be able to win more orders in the world markets.
Vosper Shiprepairers is in my constituency, but at present it is in limbo because it is awaiting consideration of tenders for privatisation. When does the Minister expect a decision to be taken on the privatisation of Vosper Shiprepairers, and does he expect that firm to be privatised as a whole or in parts? There are three parts of the shiprepair business in Southampton, but the work force and management simply do not know whether British Shipbuilders is planning to sell those parts individually or collectively.
This is also an area in which an urgent decision is needed. There was the disappointment of losing the quote for the QE2 refit this year, and the 1985 cruise liner refits will be considered early in the new year. Vosper Shiprepairers wishes to prove itself to be more competitive than, sadly, it has been in the past.
Labour Members who think that competition and competiveness play no part in British shipbuilding will be interested to know that when the QE2 refit was put out by Cunard the lowest tender was £1·8 million from Hapags in Bremerhaven. Other tenders were £1·9 million from a Dutch shipyard; £2·18 million from a shipyard in Hamburg; and £2·7 million from Vosper. Who can expect divisions of British Shipbuilders to win orders if they are as uncompetitive as that? I very much hope that when Vosper Shiprepairs is privatised it will become much more competitive and will win back the cruise line orders.
Vosper need not necessarily be the lowest tenderer, because travelling from Southampton to the northern European yards involves much steaming time. Nevertheless, it must be more competitive than previously. The figures which I have quoted, which were given to me by Cunard. demonstrate that the yards in Southampton must be more competitive if they are to survive.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I shall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, take note of what you said about brevity.
The charge against the Government is twofold. First, they have failed to analyse correctly the nature of the crisis in the shipbuilding industry, and from that failure they have moved to the most Lamontable of conclusions. They believe, quite wrongly, that there is a free market in shipbuilding. There is no such thing. If Government policy assumes that there is or, even worse, that there should be, unfortunately our major competitors such as Japan and Korea do not take that view.
Instead of supporting the industry, the Government intend to smash it and to sell a small part of the remnants to the private sector—almost solely to deal with the requirements of the Ministry of Defence. There is no

commercial reason for this, because of the nature of pricing naval work. Such privatisation will mean ruination for a fair part of my constituency.
Swan Hunter, a magnificent yard, is our major employer which deals with both naval and merchant work. It is our belief that the Government are deliberately holding back type 22 orders in order to shed labour prior to privatisation. That is a despicable way in which to treat my constituents, yet that is what they and I believe the Government aredoing.
The workers there ask, "And what of Swan's management? Where do their loyalties lie? Are they with the interests of the current owners or those of the private consortium which seeks to buy the profitable bit after the Government have killed the rest?" What confidence can that work force have in a senior management which is literally planning to jump ship?
The Government do not even care about merchant shipbuilding. Swan Hunter is being told "The future lies with warship work"— Conservative party code for saying that there will be no more merchant work. Labour Members understand that there is a world over-capacity, but why do the Government meet that crisis by pulling out of the market rather than protecting a share of it for our nation? The Koreans and Japanese do not believe in free markets. They will buy their share of the world market, and we shall give them ours. If ever the Government protect our merchant shipbuilding, I believe that they will do so when the remnants of the merchant yards have been handed over to private industry, and not before.
I wish to kill the nonsense about subsidy. Miners, shipbuilders, heavy engineering workers and all the manual workers in the north-east who form part of the industrial base of our nation through their work, wages, insurance premiums and bank accounts subsidise and carry the burden of much of the south-east based service sector of the economy. The Government seek to isolate shipbuilding from the rest of the economy, but that is not possible.
The Government's policy is disastrous for my constituency. Of the seven wards there, four are shipbuilding wards. In those four wards 49 per cent. of male unemployment is made up of time-served men with five-year apprenticeships behind them. All that skill, is wasted. Despite that dramatic statistic, unskilled workers will suffer even more, if that were possible. They face returning to the days of standing at the gate and trying to get a day's work or of having a three-day contract. My constituents will not accept that.
In the Rochester estate in Walker, which is in the heart of the shipbuilding community, male unemployment is 73 per cent. At Walker school, which is the community school that serves the shipbuilding area, more than 90 per cent. of school leavers will not find jobs. At my surgery, grown men have broken down and cried because they have no work. There has been a steady increase in hard drug taking and addiction. Last weekend, I met a delegation of mums, all of whom had come to see me about glue sniffing and solvent abuse and wanted to know what could be done to stop their youngsters doing that. That was a clear statement of personal tragedy. What could I say to them?
Newcastle local authority is having to work hard to prevent council estates in east Newcastle from becoming no-go areas. I have a keen interest in housing, both as a councillor and as a Member of this House. It is the first time that we have faced these sad circumstances.
This may sound odd, but all credit is due to the Conservative group on Newcastle city council, which does not share the views of Conservative Members. When the council last debated shipbuilding, the Conservative group behaved in a most constructive and generous way about an area which they do not represent—it is clear why they do not. The Conservative group called for state intervention to support a level of employment in the community, for which Conservative Members seem to have no sympathy. All credit is due to that group of councillors but shame to Conservative Members. All credit is due to Tyne and Wear county council, which the Government vindictively seek to abolish, for trying to state the case for the industry through the "Save our shipyards" campaign.
My constituents demand that the Government change their policy. If they do not, the state will not be able to cope with the consequences, and respect for parliamentary democracy and the law will be irrevocably undermined. They will be undermined by the Ministers' complacency.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Not surprisingly, the tenor of the Opposition's contribution tonight is that if more money could be pumped into shipbuilding, all would be well. Many people wish that that was the case. The harsh economic facts of life are such that shipping does far more than merely subsidise our home industries. Shipping is an international business and relies on a flow of trade. Ships are required to service the flow of trade. If there is no demand for trade, there is no demand for ships.
If Opposition Members want to know where the crisis in the shipbuilding industry is, I suggest that they fly to Athens. A third of the world's shipping is controlled from Athens. As one flies into Athens over the Bay of Corinth and then Elefsis bay and looks out of the window, one sees rows and rows of ships laid up. There are not tens or hundreds but more than 1,000 ships laid up in the bays around Athens and in the Corinth canal. That is where the crisis in the shipbuilding industry is.
One must ask what those ships are doing there. The simple reason is that the cost of operating a ship is fixed. If a ship's earnings are less than its running costs, the shipowner will lay it up. The world's sea lanes are full of ships slow steaming at break-even prices. The days of the get-rich-quick ship operators of the 1950s and 1960s are over. The days of Onassis and Livarnos are finished. There is no demand for shipping any more.
If a shipowner who has not gone bust occasionally has need of a ship, he has no loyalty which will cause him to come to England. He may have been educated in England, but if he can build a ship more cheaply elsewhere, he will go there. He will turn to the shipbuilding yards of the far east and the Pacific basin where he can have a ship built for two thirds of what it would cost in England. Opposition Members may argue that that is because Asian yards subsidise ship owners. The difference in the price is greater than the subsidy. The work force is more efficient and more productive than the work force in this country.
The South Korean industry is second only to that of Japan. In 1974 the Korean industry ranked 70th in the world. Last year, it increased its share of the world's order book from 9 to 14 per cent. compared with the United

Kingdom's share of 2 per cent. Western yards often blame that on unfair competition. The Korean Government are accused of granting excessive subsidies and export credits to enable their yards to quote prices up to 35 per cent. cheaper than those of their European rivals.
The Koreans, however, will argue that their two largest yards, Daewoo and Hyundai, receive no direct Government subsidy, although they benefited initially from a five-year export credit. The terms, however, are said to be less favourable than those offered by the Japanese.
The Korean yards are cheaper because they are more modern and more efficient; their raw materials, particularly steel, are cheaper than those in Europe; and they have a disciplined work force. The average working week in Korean shipyards is 60 hours and wages are about one third of those paid in Japan. There is no doubt that their continued expansion is unhelpful to present world over-capacity.

Mr. John Smith: So?

Mr. Ottaway: I am trying to explain why no one buys British ships.

Mr. Smith: What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about it?

Mr. Ottaway: Ask my hon. Friend the Minister. It is not only the far east that can compete on better terms; the Finnish yards built the Royal Princess within the right time and at the right price. That is why a shipowner will go to Finland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) said, if Hapags can convert the QE2 more cheaply than British yards, the contract will go to Germany.
The Government should give some financial assistance to shipbuilding. As hon. Members will remember earlier this year we had "Exercise Lionheart" where a number of—

Mr. Smith: So what?

Mr. Ottaway: I listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The least he can do is to listen to me.
In that exercise, a large number of soldiers were carried to Europe by foreign ships. The Government should consider what will happen if those ships are not available in wartime. If we cannot rely on such ships, as the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said, the Government should consider providing some subsidy out of the budget of the Department of Trade and Industry or the Ministry of Defence to build up the merchant marine so that such exercises can be carried out in the future.
Money is not the only consideration. We have only to look at the traumatic events that took place in Birkenhead. When a shipowner is deciding whether to build in Birkenhead he will remember the scenes that he saw there earlier this year. A militant core of workers held up construction of a gas rig and HMS Edinburgh. He will decide that it is not worth while building his ship or rig in Birkenhead.

Mr. Frank Field: rose—

Mr. Ottaway: When the hon. Gentlemen say that something has to be done, I agree. We have to be able to build ships as efficiently as they do in Korea, and we have to sort out our industrial relations. Until that is sorted out, we shall always have a crisis in the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Ted Garrett: Unfortunately, the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, is no longer in his seat. Had he been so, he would have agreed that in Committee and on the Floor of the House he and I have debated, and disagreed, and sometimes agreed on, all the facets of the shipbuilding industry. One thing is certain: he and I have been witnesses to a play that has become a tragedy. We have watched and have now become aware of the inexorable end to this tragedy. Despite some of the statements that we have heard tonight, that inexorable end seems to be that we shall not have a shipbuilding industry. We have been told tonight that the industry is in trouble at the moment, but that it can be more lean and efficient and still have a future. That may be the case, but the proof has not emerged in the debate so far.
I was singularly unimpressed by what the Minister said. Perhaps I have become cynical and have heard the arguments too often. I know that the 2,100 people employed in the Wallsend yard of Swan Hunter have no possibility of a reprieve from redundancy. The Government have not had the courage to say that the position of the redundant workers is infinitely worse than has been suggested. The Minister said that the future orders were a matter of confidentiality. I have the statement that was made to the employees last week and it lists six options, which obviously include the notional contracts and perhaps some of the tenders being negotiated now. If work resulted from these, I would be a little more cheerful, but it does not seem likely.
I am beginning to think that the Tyne and Wear will again become isolated industrial deserts. The Government's policy of standing away from the manufacturing base and pretending that it does not exist is to blame. We have seen the near extinction of the steel, cotton, textile and machine tool industries, and so it goes on. It cannot continue. The difference of philosophy between the parties must be submerged in the national interest. We must have a manufacturing base, which must include shipbuilding. If we have not, we are doomed as a nation.
If the Government's decision to keep away from getting involved in the future of the manufacturing base continues, there is not much hope. The famous rivers of the Tyne and the Wear will be all right because both banks will have green verdant pastures on which the cattle and the sheep will graze. There will be trees, but there will be no people and no jobs. The Minister must sacrifice his blind ideological belief in free enterprise as the answer to our problems. It is not. We must get rid of this ideology and think of the well-being of the 57 million inhabitants of our island. We must think of the people whose jobs depend on some of the decisions that we make tonight.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I speak in this debate, as I have spoken in previous debates, as someone who has a close interest in Redheads Shiprepairer. It is not a financial interest. My hon. Friend the Minister will know, because he was with me on the day that the yard was opened, that I have taken an interest in its work and have kept in close touch since then with Jack Richardson and his men.
It is worth putting on record that the Government have made it possible for the men in that yard, and for the men

in Tyne Shiprepairer Ltd. alongside it, to take a stake in their company and to continue to work in jobs which they inevitably lost under nationalisation. Both those yards are already successful. Redheads now has a turnover of some £2 million. Tyne Shiprepairer Ltd. has an order book worth some £3 million.
Redheads in particular is more than simply a commercial success. I hope that all hon. Members would wish it to be a commercial success in a hostile ship repair environment. It is also a shining example to the rest of the industry, not simply the repair industry, of the much more flexible approach that is required in working practices, entrepreneurship and by going out across the continent of Europe to market one's product.
I ask Labour Members to reflect on one question. Would Redheads and the men who work in that yard have enjoyed that success and continued to enjoy that success had we gone on with the same old nationalised bureaucratic inflexible industry that they chose to establish in 1977?
I suggest that the Government should look again at Redheads and consider whether the flexibility there— which both management and staff have shown can change a yard which BS closed because it was making a loss into a yard that the men themselves now own and which is making a profit—can be adopted on a much wider basis in merchant shipbuilding.

Mr. Bob Clay: This debate, like previous debates on shipbuilding, has revolved around clear expositions from Labour Members and pathetic excuses from Conservative Members. We have heard the same excuses tonight that we have heard in the past. Nothing has moved on for Conservative Members. We have already lost some yards. But things have moved on for Labour Members because in the next few weeks— not months or years— a massive slice of the industry will go under. Some announcements have already been made in the past few days.
My constituency is facing sell-offs, closures already announced or closures that will take place if there are not orders at the Deptford yard of Sunderland Shipbuilders and Austin and Pickersgill in the next few days. We are talking about over 3,000 redundancies on the river by March next year. We cannot wait until March next year to get the orders to right that situation.
I am glad to see that the Minister of State has just returned. I want to remind him of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) to which we would like specific replies. There is an Ethiopian order. It lies with the Minister's Department. He has had that application now for some weeks, having suggested that Austin and Pickersgill should put it in. When will he respond? Time is running out.
The Government also have within their gift a decision on the St. Helena order. That again could keep the yard open. The Deptford yard of Sunderland Shipbuilders is also working on its last ship. As I understand it, BS says that that yard is unlikely to get a further Mexican order which it could have had because it cannot compete with cheap French credit. Those are not my words, but those of BS.
We also understand that ITM Middlesbrough Ltd. would order immediately from Sunderland Shipbuilders a heavy lifting barge for the Morecambe Bay gas exploration


if the Department of Energy would make up its mind that it wants to place that contract. The Government can make an immediate decision on such matters, and if they do not do so thousands of jobs will be lost. Indeed, no one now disputes that for every one job lost directly in the yards, another three are lost in the immediate vicinity, in subsidiary and ancillary services. Therefore, on one river in my constituency 10,000 jobs will be at stake in the next three months, despite the fact that the area already has a 26 per cent. male unemployment rate and that in some parts of the town, particularly in those where many shipyard workers live, the rate is well above 50 per cent. That is what is at stake.
The simple questions that we ask about the orders available give the lie to the defeatist claptrap that we have heard from Conservative Members about there being no orders and about the recession making it all impossible. Recession or no recession, we are talking about orders that exist. Someone will obtain them, and it is a question of whether the Government will ensure that they are placed in British yards. In the past few months orders have been lost. Austin and Pickersgill could have had an order from West Germany for two or three ships. There was a price gap of £2 million. So £2 million of further Government intervention could have placed orders in that yard and kept it open.
I, along with others, wrote to the Minister urging him to ensure that British Shipbuilders and his Department did something to secure that order. But the Department dithered, underbid and lost the order, as some of us predicted would happen. It has now done that twice on the same order. That is either incompetence or a sign that the Department intends to run down the industry and let the yards close.
Some hon. Members believe that there is incompetence and misunderstanding, but, as I have said before, the evidence points more and more to the fact that the Government have a wilful policy of eliminating merchant shipbuilding in this country. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) quoted the comments of Sir Robert Atkinson in a lengthy and interesting interview with the Sunderland Echo. Since then, Sir Robert has said something even more damning. On regional television, in the north-east of England, he said:
When I tried to talk to them"—
the Government and the Minister—
about investment they did not want to know. When I wanted to talk about Research and Development they weren't interested. But if I talked about closing yards or sacking workers, a light shone in their eyes.
Those are the words of the former chairman of British Shipbuilders, who was appointed by the Government.
Opposition Members must decide whether Government incompetence is to blame or whether, as Sir Robert Atkinson says, the Government have a policy of deliberately destroying the industry. Unless the Minister can give concrete answers tonight to the questions that have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and me about those orders and about the Sunderland yards, the shipyard workers will believe, just as we must believe, that they could not give a damn and that they intend to close the yards.
I shall conclude on a point that has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne,

East (Mr. Brown). Conservative Members are reaping the whirlwind that they sowed with pit closure after pit closure and the appointment of Mr. MacGregor and Graham Day. They will have the same problem twice over or more if they continue with this policy. Those communities will not tolerate that level of unemployment and hopelessness any more than the NUM does. In some areas, including mine, the workers will fight alongside each other. They have started doing so already. The Government should realise the trouble that they will store up if they allow the yards to close. I only hope that if the violence that comes from the hopelessness and despair, and that is the product of this Government's policies, is unleashed in areas such as Wearside, we shall not hear nauseously hypocritical tut-tutting from Conservative Members. They have been warned. If Ministers do not take action immediately, that will be the inevitable consequence of their abandonment of those communities.

Mr. Don Dixon: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on making a first-class case for our motion. The Minister accused my right hon. and learned Friend of getting his needle stuck. That is a cheek because the Minister has offered the same arguments ever since he became Minister. His only offer is more privatisation. He said that the Government have helped the shipbuilding industry since 1979. That reminds me of the person who said "If things don't improve I shall have to stop asking for your help."
The shipbuilding industry is in such a state that it cannot afford any more redundancies or contraction. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) talked of practical ways in which we can help in the short term. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) asked about the industry's viability and the Government's commitment. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) talked about a maritime policy, as recommended by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry way back in 1981. The Government have taken no action.
Redheads has been mentioned, as it was during a debate on the Queen's Speech. I agree that more talent is stagnating in the labour exchanges than is speculating on the stock exchanges. Redheads prove that the men themselves can run an industry. Perhaps too much say has been given to management in the nationalised industries. Shop stewards certainly complain about that to me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) spoke about the expected massive redundancies and how communities will react. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) talked about tragedy hitting the shipbuilding industry and said that nothing would be left. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) talked about the number of skilled unemployed males in his constituency.
The Minister never mentioned the community or the social consequences of redundancies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, shipbuilding communities are like mining communities. The living and working environments are tied. When a shipyard closes, a town closes.
I shall not talk about what happened to the town in which I lived in the 1960s, but in Tyne and Wear 20 per cent. of manufacturing jobs are connected with


shipbuilding. For every job inside the shipyard two exist outside to service it. In Wallsend 44 per cent. of male employment is in the shipbuilding industry. In Jarrow and South Shields 18 per cent. of male employment is in the shipbuilding industry.
In my constituency 31·3 per cent. of the male population is out of work. In addition, we heard this week that British Steel is to close its rolling mill there, throwing 246 men out of jobs. Swan Hunter sacked 2,100 men and decided that Palmers at Hebburn would be put into mothballs.
This is the first time in living memory that no ships are being built on the south side of the Tyne. This Government have done what Hitler's bombers could not do during the last world war. The Government have no feeling for the shipbuilding communities. The reduced spending power of the workers is devastating businesses and shops in our areas. Since the Tyne and Wear "Save our shipyard" campaign started, I have received letters from shopkeepers and other business men who are worried about the effect of redundancies. If the Government had showed spirit and had fought to create employment in our area, they would have done what the Tyne and Wear county council has done. Instead of trying to eliminate the council, the Government would have been emulating it.
An article in the local paper stated:
Any further contraction in shipbuilding and in engineering activities on the north-east coast would do irreparable damage to the future of the nation.
If the skills and knowledge invested in this area were lost through any further contraction they would never be regained.
This would be a great loss to the nation as a whole as they are the skills which would be needed in the future.
All good men and true the length and breadth of the north-east coast should come forward to join a concerted bid to save the industry.
Now is the time for all men of good standing who are interested in this country and its future to forget their political and other differences and speak out for the sake of the nation.
Those were the words not of the general secretary of the boilermakers union, or the regional secretary of the TUC but of the former chairman of British Shipbuilders, Sir Robert Atkinson, in an article printed in the Sunderland Echo on 23 July.
The hon. Members for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), who has disappeared at the moment, and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) talked about privatisation. I can tell them about privatisation because I worked in the British shipbuilding industry from the time I left school when I was 14 until I became a Member in 1979. Until 1977, the British shipbuilding industry was in private hands, and they made an almighty mess of it. That is why the industry was nationalised in 1977. If the Labour Government had not achieved orders for Polish ships, there would have been no British shipbuilding industry.
The Government talk about the entrepreneurs in private industry. There was the Paton report in 1962, the Geddes report in 1966 and the Booz Allen report in 1972. Every one of those inquiries, which were conducted when the British shipbuilding industry was in private hands, complained about the lack of investment and bad management. It was not the men who worked in the industry but the management who had the say about investment during that time.
A survey conducted in the 1970s showed that there were assets of £825 per British shipbuilding worker. In Germany the amount was more than £1,000 per worker. Initially, it was more than £1,200. In Sweden there were

assets of more than £1,800 per shipbuilding worker and in Japan there were assets of more than £2,800 per shipbuilding worker. The Minister talked about the £1 billion that has been invested since nationalisation. He said that last year £100 million was invested. In 1981–82 the Japanese merchant banks invested £620 million in seven shipyards. The Korean shipyards, in spite of the fact that they started from a good base, have invested £400 million a year. How on earth do the Government expect the British shipyard workers to compete?
The Government amendment states that the House
welcomes the efforts of the industry's management to achieve that objective".
I refer the House to the evidence given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. The chairman asked:
I have a personal question for you, Mr. Day. When you took up your job, was your remit given to you … to privatise?
Mr. Graham Day replied:
I was aware from the media what the government policy was and I was told that in effect my remit had two parts.
He did not accept any brief in writing from the Government. He learnt about the Government's policy through the media, and took the job on that basis.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, Graham Day is doing to British Shipbuilders what MacGregor is doing to the British mining industry. Is it a coincidence that both men come from the western hemisphere? The best thing that the Government could do would be to put them both on a boat and send them back to North America. We would probably have a better industry as a result.
We are not discussing only shipbuilding. We must consider the shipping industry. For a long time, that industry relied on 100 per cent. depreciation to give it the edge. It was dealt a savage blow when that provision was withdrawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Since the Falklands operation, when 54 merchant ships were in the task force, there has been a reduction of more than 200 ships in our merchant fleet, totalling over 8 million deadweight tonnes.
Apart from Greece, the United Kingdom has the largest fleet in the EC and, consequently, the largest ordering requirement. It is about time that some British shipowners showed the same loyalty to British shipyards that Japanese shipowners show to Japanese yards. Not one Japanese shipowner has ordered a ship outside Japan since 1947. Everyone knows that the Koreans can build ships cheaper than the Japanese, so if we are talking about an open market in shipbuilding, why do Japanese shipowners not have their ships built in Korea? It is because they show a loyalty to their industry that British shipowners do not show to our industry.
In the past five years, the number of ships ordered by EC shipowners in their own countries has totalled 98 per cent. in Italy, 97 per cent. in Belgium, 82 per cent. in West Germany, 77 per cent. in France, 74 per cent. in the Netherlands, 73 per cent. in Denmark and only 44 per cent. in the United Kingdom. Last year, out of 360,000 tonnes of British owners' shipping orders, 311,00(1 tonnes went abroad. If those orders had been made in this country, our industry would not be in its present state.
Not only have the Government hit shipping and shipbuilding, but they have hit the people who sail on the ships. They even took away the 25 per cent. tax deduction that seafarers have been given for so long. That costs those men an average of £10 a week and penalises them in comparison with their counterparts in western Europe.
Some Conservative Members claim that British shipbuilding workers have made no sacrifices since 1979. In fact, they made so many sacrifices that they have fallen from fourth to below 20th in the wages league and they have reduced the number of wage bargaining units from 160 to two— one manual and one staff. It was said some time ago that if British shipyard workers worked for nothing, they would still not be able to compete with the Koreans. It is nonsense for Conservative Members to say that the workers are the main problem in the shipbuilding industry.
We want the Government to call a halt to all closures in the industry. We have reached the bare minimum for survival and we cannot contract any more. At one time, we used to produce 80 per cent. of the world's tonnage; now we produce less than 2 per cent. We want a halt to privatisation, which would be nonsensical at a time when the industry is facing such severe problems. The private sector has already failed the industry.
We need a maritime policy and a new system of financial aids to replace the intervention fund. As an island nation, we must retain the shipbuilding, marine engineering and shipping industries. Shipbuilding plays a vital part in our nation's prosperity and in its protection. We have a capability that needs to be sustained and recognised as a national asset. It cannot be used intermittently, turned on and off like a hot water tap and available only when required. To be effective it needs continuous use and constant improvement. It needs continuous investment in men and materials. Once that capability is allowed to be displaced, it will never be recovered. Under the Government's policy, what will happen to the shipping and shipbuilding industry will be the same as happened to the motor cycle industry.
In the paper this morning I read that the Prime Minister had given a lecture in the Carlton club to some Conservative body on why democracy will last. I have no doubt that many of the people in her audience have never seen a pair of overalls, let alone worn them. If the Prime Minister and her Government let the shipbuilding industry go to the wall, they will be the "enemy within", and they will never be forgiven by the British people.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I should like first to respond to the very distinguished speech of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), who correctly drew the attention of the House to two themes which concern any hon. Member representing and industrial constituency.
I reassure the hon. Member that it is the Government's view that manufacturing matters. Eighty per cent. of what we make within our economy is internationally tradeable, and 18 per cent. of service sector activity is similarly internationally tradeable. Therefore, those members of our work force who are committed to manufacturing activity give us very good value for money, and it is this Administration's intention to see that our manufacturing base continues to provide the core of our wealth-creating activity.
I assure the hon. Member for Wallsend that I do not take the view that long-term unemployment is to be tolerated. I do not take the view that is sometimes taken

in fashionable debating circles, that somehow structural unemployment is with us for ever. Indeed, I will give the hon. Gentleman two figures which support me in that contention. In 1966, our share of the world's export trade was 14 per cent. In 1983, it was 8 per cent. The steepest falls were not during Conservative Administrations.
According to the CBI, every 1 per cent. reduction in our world trade represents 250,000 jobs lost. If we are to believe those figures—and I do—surely it is not too risky to say in this House that we can and should regain the level of trade that we had such a short time ago. By getting back to the share of trade that we once had, we can regain 1·5 million jobs. I believe that that is a legitimate target.
When there is a whirlwind of international competition in the shipbuilding industry, how can we regain our share of the market? How can we fight back in the domestic and the international markets?

Mr. Robert C. Brown: rose—

Mr. Butcher: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed. Several of his hon. Friends have made distinguished contributions to the debate and I have many questions to answer. I shall try to answer them all in the time available.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) understandably and correctly voiced his concern. He talked about a crisis. A large number of redundancies are contemplated at Swan Hunter and at Vosper Thornycroft. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is not my intention tonight to criticise the work force or the working practices of the industry at this time. One has to concede that in the past they were not of the best, but lessons are being learned, and people are learning to work together. That gives us the best element of hope for the future.
Incidentally, I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's figure that for every job in the shipbuilding construction industry, downstream there are three further jobs to consider. That also has an effect on the communities with which we are concerned. I shall refer to his comments about Graham Day and particularly about competition from the far east. I should like to report, for the time being, that next week we shall be involved in bilateral talks with the Koreans and it is our intention to place at the top of the agenda of the talks the effects that Korean pricing is having in distorting the market for shipping and in eroding their competitive position, which in turn is driving the rest of the world's industry into a downward spiral of ever-increasing subsidy. That cannot be right in the long-term for the Pacific basin. It is certainly not right for the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) asked about the SD14 order for St. Helena, which involves the Overseas Development Administration's position on the matter. I assure him that we shall make strong representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and ask that the decision be urgently reviewed, although the situation is not quite as straightforward as hon. members on both sides of the House may think.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) talked accurately about the key role of management. Without a good management and a good work force, no amount of public money can rescue any


company from uncompetitive practices and uncompetitive behaviour. My hon. Friend also talked about the farsighted decision of Vickers. That company specialised; it produced successful results. It produced an excellent facility upon which we can build. I commend my hon. Friend on—

Mr. Dick Douglas: The Minister has never been in a shipyard.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Butcher: I commend my hon. Friend on his robust and pugnacious assertions—

Mr. Douglas: He has never been in a shipyard.

Mr. Butcher: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that I have worked—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not seemly conduct.

Mr. Butcher: I neglected to say to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) that at the moment we are negotiating on the intervention fund. We are arguing, as we were reminded by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), for increased flexibility, and my hon. Friend the Minister for State is asking for a much better deal from the European Community on the intervention fund.
I commend the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on his courage to support those who want to work. He has supported the real right-to-work campaign, which concerns preserving jobs for those who wish to go to work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) said that he would like to see the earliest resolution of the type 22 issue. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be minded to bring his decision forward during this year. He is aware that many shipyards, like the one my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen represents, are waiting for that early decision. With regard to the position of Vosper Thornycroft on privatisation, I can confirm that British Shipbuilders is pursuing the privatisation of Vosper ship repair as fast as it can and has had several serious expressions of interest.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South, together with other hon. Members, asked whether we can predict or guarantee that those who may be bidding for and may eventually take over the Hall Russell facility will continue shipbuilding at Hall Russell. It is the intent of the Department of Trade and Industry that that should be so, subject to the usual questions on viability and the company's competence to continue shipbuilding activity on that site. I hope that that response gives some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) rightly pointed to the roller coaster progression— some might call it regression— of the industry. He correctly said that working practices were now improving. That improvement must continue because, like a runner, our shipbuilding industry must gather pace and run faster and faster to haul back on the lead gained by our competitors. I hope that the examples of bad practices that he cited will be the last examples of bad industrial relations in the industry. He also reminded us that the capability of both work force and management is the key to success for all the sites up and down the country.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) through his trade union associations has a special interest

in technology. I am afraid that he will have to wait for a written reply to some of his questions, not least because I suspect that the House is in no mood to discuss the £30 million that British Shipbuilders has committed to projects such as CADCAM— computer aided design and manufacture—automated manufacturing techniques and so on. The hon. Gentleman is well versed in those disciplines and I undertake to give him the appropriate information on investment in those categories by letter. He also asked for greater flexibility in the intervention fund. That is precisely our negotiating position, and we shall continue to press for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) vividly pointed out why there is a crisis, illustrating the problem of surplus capacity by pointing to the 1,000 ships laid up in the bay of Greece. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) asked us to look again at Redheads. I confirm that we shall reaffirm the lessons of privatisation there and take on board the lessons learned at that excellent site.
The hon. Member for Jarrow asked us to think of the community. Of course we bear in mind the effect on communities. That is why we are negotiating the continuation of the shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Butcher: That is why we, too, are interested in preserving skills.

Mr. Loyden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Butcher: Our help and concern has been very tangible indeed. Regional support on Wearside has been £31·5 million, on Teesside £181 million and on north Tyne £57·8 million. That is not complacency. For south Tyne the figure is £50 million and for Glasgow £88 million. Not only have we put more than £1 billion into the industry: we have recognised the social consequences of redundancies and the particular difficulties faced by communities experiencing structural unemployment.
We have been accused of complacency. I reject that accusation on four main counts. The first is the now much debated £1,170 million. The second is the negotiation for an increase in our take from the intervention fund and a much better deal for the United Kingdom in Europe. The third is our negotiations with Korea. The fourth is our commitment in hard cash in orders from the public sector for £2,800 million worth of naval vessels spread over nine yards and involving 32 vessels. That is not complacency. We take the comments made in the debate very seriously indeed. We affirm our concern for the industry.

Mr. Loyden: Rubbish.

Mr. Butcher: Unfortunately, the hon. Member has not been here for much of the debate.
On that basis, I ask my hon. Friends to reject the motion. The motion is flawed. It does not identify the key considerations for profitability, competitiveness and our ability to beat international competition. I therefore ask my hon. Friends to vote for the Prime Minister's amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 267.

Division No. 22]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Garrett, W. E.


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
George, Bruce


Anderson, Donald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gould, Bryan


Ashdown, Paddy
Gourlay, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hardy, Peter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Heffer, Eric S.


Barnett, Guy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Barron, Kevin
Home Robertson, John


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Benn, Tony
Howells, Geraint


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hoyle, Douglas


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Boyes, Roland
Janner, Hon Greville


Bray, Dr Jeremy
John, Brynmor


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Johnston, Russell


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Kennedy, Charles


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bruce, Malcolm
Kirkwood, Archy


Buchan, Norman
Lambie, David


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, Ian
Leighton, Ronald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Canavan, Dennis
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Litherland, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cartwright, John
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Loyden, Edward


Clay, Robert
McCartney, Hugh


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cohen, Harry
McKelvey, William


Coleman, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Madden, Max


Conlan, Bernard
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Maxton, John


Cowans, Harry
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Meacher, Michael


Crowther, Stan
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michie, William


Dalyell, Tam
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Deakins, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dewar, Donald
Nellist, David


Dixon, Donald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dobson, Frank
O'Brien, William


Dormand, Jack
O'Neill, Martin


Douglas, Dick
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dubs, Alfred
Park, George


Duffy, A. E. P.
Parry, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Patchett, Terry


Eadie, Alex
Pendry, Tom


Eastham, Ken
Penhaligon, David


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpfn SE)
Pike, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ewing, Harry
Prescott, John


Fatchett, Derek
Radice, Giles


Faulds, Andrew
Randall, Stuart


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Redmond, M.


Fisher, Mark
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Flannery, Martin
Robertson, George


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Forrester, John
Rogers, Allan


Foulkes, George
Rooker, J. W.


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Freud, Clement
Rowlands, Ted





Ryman, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Sedgemore, Brian
Tinn, James


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Torney, Tom


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wallace, James


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Short, Mrs H.(W'hampfn NE)
Wareing, Robert


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Weetch, Ken


Skinner, Dennis
Welsh, Michael


Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
White, James


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Snape, Peter
Wilson, Gordon


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Spearing, Nigel
Woodall, Alec


Stott, Roger
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Strang, Gavin



Straw, Jack
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Rt Hon John David
Mr. John McWilliam and


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Mr. Frank Haynes.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Cranborne, Viscount


Aitken, Jonathan
Critchley, Julian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Dicks, Terry


Ancram, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Tom
Dover, Den


Ashby, David
Dunn, Robert


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Durant, Tony


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dykes, Hugh


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Emery, Sir Peter


Baldry, Tony
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fallon, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Farr, Sir John


Bendall, Vivian
Favell, Anthony


Benyon, William
Fletcher, Alexander


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forman, Nigel


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blackburn, John
Fox, Marcus


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Franks, Cecil


Body, Richard
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Goodlad, Alastair


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry


Brinton, Tim
Gregory, Conal


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grist, Ian


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Grylls, Michael


Bruinvels, Peter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bulmer, Esmond
Harg reaves, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butcher, John
Harvey, Robert


Butler, Hon Adam
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Butterfill, John
Heddle, John


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hind, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunter, Andrew


Cockeram, Eric
Irving, Charles


Colvin, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Conway, Derek
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Cope, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Key, Robert


Corrie, John
King, Rt Hon Tom






Knox, David
Ryder, Richard


Lamont, Norman
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lang, Ian
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lilley, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


MacGregor, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maclean, David John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Speller, Tony


McQuarrie, Albert
Spence, John


Madel, David
Spencer, Derek


Major, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malone, Gerald
Squire, Robin


Maples, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Stanley, John


Marlow, Antony
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stern, Michael


Mather, Carol
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stokes, John


Merchant, Piers
Stradling Thomas, J.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sumberg, David


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Montgomery, Fergus
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moore, John
Thome, Neil (Word S)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thurnham, Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Tracey, Richard


Mudd, David
Trippier, David


Murphy, Christopher
Trotter, Neville


Neale, Gerrard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Needham, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Newton, Tony
Waddington, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Walters, Dennis


Ottaway, Richard
Ward, John


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Warren, Kenneth


Parris, Matthew
Watson, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitfield, John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Whitney, Raymond


Pollock, Alexander
Wiggin, Jerry


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Powley, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Price, Sir David
Wolfson, Mark


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wood, Timothy


Raffan, Keith
Woodcock, Michael


Rhodes James, Robert
Yeo, Tim


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Ridsdale, Sir Julian



Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.


Roe, Mrs Marion

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 185.

Division No. 23]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Favell, Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fletcher, Alexander


Amess, David
Fookes, Miss Janet


Ancram, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Tom
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Ashby, David
Fox, Marcus


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Franks, Cecil


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Gale, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Baldry, Tony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Batiste, Spencer
Glyn, Dr Alan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bellingham, Henry
Goodlad, Alastair


Bendall, Vivian
Gower, Sir Raymond


Benyon, William
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Greenway, Harry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gregory, Conal


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Blackburn, John
Grist, Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Grylls, Michael


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Harris, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Heddle, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hicks, Robert


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hind, Kenneth


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Bright, Graham
Howard, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hunter, Andrew


Bruinvels, Peter
Irving, Charles


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A,
Jessel, Toby


Bulmer, Esmond
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Burt, Alistair
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Butcher, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Butler, Hon Adam
Key, Robert


Butterfill, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Knox, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lamont, Norman


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Lang, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Chapman, Sydney
Lightbown, David


Chope, Christopher
Lilley, Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lord, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
McCrindle, Robert


Cockeram, Eric
Macfarlane, Neil


Colvin, Michael
MacGregor, John


Conway, Derek
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Coombs, Simon
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Cope, John
Maclean, David John


Cormack, Patrick
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Corrie, John
McQuarrie, Albert


Cranborne, Viscount
Madel, David


Dicks, Terry
Malins, Humfrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Malone, Gerald


Dover, Den
Maples, John


Dunn, Robert
Marland, Paul


Durant, Tony
Marlow, Antony


Dykes, Hugh
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Mather, Carol


Emery, Sir Peter
Maude, Hon Francis


Evennett, David
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Merchant, Piers


Farr, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony






Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Speller, Tony


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Spence, John


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Spencer, Derek


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Monro, Sir Hector
Squire, Robin


Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moore, John
Stanley, John


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Steen, Anthony


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stern, Michael


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mudd, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Murphy, Christopher
Stokes, John


Neale, Gerrard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Needham, Richard
Sumberg, David


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Newton, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thornton, Malcolm


Parris, Matthew
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pawsey, James
Tracey, Richard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trippier, David


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Trotter, Neville


Pollock, Alexander
Twinn, Dr Ian


Powell, William (Corby)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Powley, John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Price, Sir David
Waddington, David


Proctor, K. Harvey
Walden, George


Raffan, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Waller, Gary


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walters, Dennis


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Watson, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Watts, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Whitfield, John


Ryder, Richard
Whitney, Raymond


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wiggin, Jerry


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Winterton, Mrs Ann


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Winterton, Nicholas


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wolfson, Mark


Scott, Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Woodcock, Michael


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Silvester, Fred



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. John Major and


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Boyes, Roland


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Ashdown, Paddy
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bruce, Malcolm


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buchan, Norman


Barnett, Guy
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Ian


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Benn, Tony
Canavan, Dennis


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Bermingham, Gerald
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bidwell, Sydney
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Blair, Anthony
Clay, Robert





Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cohen, Harry
McKelvey, William


Coleman, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Madden, Max


Conlan, Bernard
Marek, DrJohn


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Maxton, John


Cowans, Harry
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Meacher, Michael


Crowther, Stan
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michie, William


Dalyell, Tam
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Deakins, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dewar, Donald
Nellist, David


Dixon, Donald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dobson, Frank
O'Brien, William


Dormand, Jack
O'Neill, Martin


Douglas, Dick
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dubs, Alfred
Park, George


Duffy, A. E. P.
Parry, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Patchett, Terry


Eadie, Alex
Pendry, Tom


Eastham, Ken
Penhaligon, David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pike, Peter


Ewing, Harry
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fatchett, Derek
Prescott, John


Faulds, Andrew
Radice, Giles


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Randall, Stuart


Fisher, Mark
Redmond, M.


Flannery, Martin
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, George


Forrester, John
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Foulkes, George
Rogers, Allan


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Rooker, J. W.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Freud, Clement
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Garrett, W. E.
Rowlands, Ted


George, Bruce
Ryman, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian


Gould, Bryan
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Gourlay, Harry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Short, Mrs R.(Whampfn NE)


Hardy, Peter
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Skinner, Dennis


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Home Robertson, John
Snape, Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Soley, Clive


Howells, Geraint
Spearing, Nigel


Hoyle, Douglas
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Janner, Hon Greville
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


John, Brynmor
Tinn, James


Johnston, Russell
Torney, Tom


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Wallace, James


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Kennedy, Charles
Wareing, Robert


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Weetch, Ken


Kirkwood, Archy
Welsh, Michael


Lambie, David
White, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Leighton, Ronald
Wilson, Gordon


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Winnick, David


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Woodall, Alec


Litherland, Robert



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mr. John McWilliam and


Loyden, Edward
Mr. Frank Haynes.


McCartney, Hugh

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the efforts being made by the British shipbuilding industry to overcome its present difficulties; notes that the Government has provided over £1,000 million of

taxpayers' money to British Shipbuilders since 1979; recognises that only by becoming more competitive can the British shipbuilding industry have a secure future; welcomes the efforts of the industry's management to achieve that objective; and endorses the Government's decision to return British Shipbuilders' warship building interest to the private sector as soon as possible.

Airey Houses (Grants)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I beg to move,
That the draft Grants by Local Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contribution) (Repairs Grant for Airey Houses) (Variation) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 22nd October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
It may be useful for hon. Members if I explain the circumstances that have given rise to this draft order.
Some five years ago, serious defects were discovered in a prefabricated reinforced concrete house of the Airey design, of which some 25,000 were built by the public sector in England and Wales after the second world war. The reinforced concrete structural posts of the house— which are concealed within the cavity wall and thus not capable of easy visual inspection— were found to be seriously cracked and spalled as a result of the corrosion of the tubular steel reinforcement within the concrete posts. Further examination of examples of this type revealed that this was affecting, actually or potentially, all houses of this type.
The defects entail the progressive deterioration, generally within a period of 30 years or so, of the PRC structural members. But for private owners of houses subject to this deterioration, and some 2,000 Airey houses have been sold by the public sector, the problem is not simply technical. In their unrepaired state, the houses are unmortgageable; private owners face substantial losses compared with the price paid by them, and they are unable to move. As most of them bought their houses before the defects or potential defects were detected and their significance understood, neither the purchasers nor the public sector bodies as vendors were in a position to protect the purchasers against incurring these losses.
This pattern of circumstances emerged first in 1981–82 in respect of owners of Airey houses, though, as hon. Members will know, subsequent research by the Building Research Establishment has revealed that all PRC dwellings designed before 1960 are likely to be similarly affected by the defects.
On 7 September 1982 my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Housing and Construction, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), announced the Government's decision to make special assistance available to those who had purchased Airey houses at valuations that did not reflect the existence of the structural defects of the type I have described.
The scheme of assistance, which came into effect on 14 February 1983, has been administered by the local authorities, and it has been a matter for their discretion whether or not they give help under it and what form of help is given in a particular case. I am glad to say that most authorities have sought to help those who have applied.
Under the discretionary scheme, eligible owners were able to apply either for a repairs grant of 90 per cent. of repairs costs subject to an eligible expense limit of £14,000 in Greater London and £10,500 elsewhere, or to have their house repurchased by the local authority at its current market value, plus an ex-gratia payment equal to 90 per cent. of the difference between the current market value and the "defect-free" value of the house.
Expenditure incurred by authorities under the scheme on repairs grants, and ex-gratia payments in cases of repurchase, has been reimbursed by the Exchequer at a rate of 100 per cent. This high rate of contribution is in recognition of the voluntary nature of local authorities' participation in the scheme.
Three statutory instruments were made to bring the repairs grant component of the discretionary scheme into effect. Two were subject to the negative resolution procedure. The first enabled repairs grants to be given under the Housing Act 1974 in respect of Airey houses— SI 1983, No. 4, the Grants by Local Authorities (Repairs Grants for Airey Houses) Order 1983. The second set the eligible expense limits for such grants—SI 1982, No. 1895, the Grants by Local Authorities (Repairs Grants for Airey Houses) (Eligible Expense Limits) Order 1982. The third order required affirmative resolution of the House and set the rate at which a grant may be given by a local authority at 90 per cent. and the rate of Exchequer contribution towards the cost of that grant at 100 per cent. That order was debated and approved by the House on 24 January 1983.
The draft order before the House tonight seeks to vary the terms of that third order. Two related orders subject to negative resolution were laid before the House on 9 November— the Grants by Local Authorities (Repairs Grants for Airey Houses) (Revocation) Order 1984, and the Grants by Local Authorities (Repairs for Airey Houses) Order (Eligible Expense Limits) (Variation) Order 1984.
That brings me to the reason for the laying of this draft order and the related orders. Last Session, Parliament enacted the Housing Defects Act, and under the Act a statutory scheme of assistance for owners of prefabricated reinforced concrete dwellings designed before 1960 is to come into effect on 1 December. Designations and orders have been made for that purpose and the Department and the Welsh Office have issued a circular describing the arrangements. Similar arrangements are being brought into effect in Scotland on the same date though, as there are no Airey houses in Scotland, that country is not affected by the matters of concern to us in this debate.
Owners of Airey houses who have made no application before 1 December under the discretionary scheme will be able to apply for the assistance to which they are entitled under the Act. Their position will be the same as that of private owners of other types of PRC dwellings in respect of which assistance will now be available. They will no longer be able to obtain that help by applying under the discretionary scheme after 1 December.
I should like to dwell on this point for just a moment. Many of us heard my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) on the radio this morning. He was seeking clarification of the position of those who wish to have their Airey house repurchased. I think that he was speaking on behalf of his constituents.
The first point I want to stress is that Airey owners have never had the right under circular 6/83 to require the council to buy back their house. The present scheme is entirely at the discretion of the council. It is for the council to decide whether to operate the scheme and whether to give assistance by way of repairs grant or repurchase.
One or two authorities do not operate the scheme at all. Others do not agree to repurchase properties, only to give grants. Under the statutory scheme to come into effect on 1 December, those who were eligible to apply under the discretionary scheme will now have a right to assistance.
Secondly, I wish to clarify the position of those who were delaying an application for repurchase under the discretionary scheme. When the Airey scheme was announced on 7 September 1982, it was decided that Exchequer contribution should be available only in respect of applications for repurchase received in the three-year period up to 7 September 1985.
At that time there was no prospect of legislation on housing defects generally, and, indeed, there was little evidence that other house types were similarly affected. I have already explained the advent of the Housing Defects Act and in the course of the Bill there was no question but that the new scheme under the Act would subsume the existing discretionary scheme. This will take place on 1 December.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire has, quite understandably, expressed concern about the position of those who have not yet applied for repurchase under the discretionary scheme.
The only difference between the discretionary scheme and the statutory scheme in this respect is that, for the latter, the Act lays down in section 3 the criteria by which an authority decides whether assistance should be by reinstatement grant or repurchase. For example, repurchase must be the form of assistance offered if the house, after repair, will not provide a further life of 30 years or be mortgageable. I should also draw my hon. Friend's attention to the provision in section 3(5) of the Act to the effect that repurchase must also be the form of assistance offered if it is unreasonable to expect the owner to await or secure the carrying out of the reinstatement works.
It is true that Airey owners applying under the Act will not be able to guarantee repurchase, but they cannot do that at the moment because they have no right. It would not be correct for their position to be different from that of other owners applying under the Act, especially as there is no specific statutory authority for repurchase under the discretionary scheme. It is worth adding that under the statutory scheme repurchase could take place up to 1994 rather than 1985 and that the terms of repurchase are marginally more favourable to the owner than under the discretionary scheme.
There is no question of Airey owners having to complete the resale of their houses by 1 December in order not to lose out under the new arrangements. The result which we are trying to achieve by this package of orders, and our advice to local authorities, is that owners who apply by 30 November should have a choice of proceeding under the discretionary scheme or of applying under the Act.
If Airey owners wish to secure for themselves this choice and they have not yet applied under the discretionary scheme, they need simply make an application under it before 1 December—a letter to the local authority will suffice. But if they do not apply by then, they will still be entitled to assistance under the Act. The only difference will be that, as I have said, under the Act it cannot be guaranteed that assistance will be by means of repurchase, rather than reinstatement, because under the Act the form of assistance depends on the application of the statutory conditions in each particular case.

Mr. David Harris: Most of us have listened to my hon. Friend in complete bafflement. Will he advise

us on how on earth we are to get across what he is saying to our constituents? I am at a complete loss as to how to do so.

Sir George Young: With respect, I think that it is my hon. Friends' job to interpret legislation in the best interests of their constituents. But if my hon. Friend wishes his constituents to keep their options open, they have only to apply under the discretionary scheme before 1 December. In that way they will obtain the advantage of the discretionary and statutory schemes.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my hon. Friend confirm that neither the old nor the new scheme applies to houses built originally in the private sector and purchased by private owners? Is it not true to say that no assistance is forthcoming for such private owners?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The discretionary and statutory schemes apply to houses that originated in the public sector. I am reluctant to impose the rest of the order's explanation on my hon. Friends, but I am nearly at an end.

Mr. Michael Knowles: The advice that my hon. Friend has just given indicates that applications should be made for discretionary grants under the existing legislation before 1 December. But if such an application were made and accepted by the local authorily, would not the applicant then be unable to apply for possibly more advantageous assistance under the Housing Defects Act?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is not quite right. If those involved had not started the work, they could at any point withdraw their application under the discretionary scheme, and reapply after 1 December under the statutory scheme. So the option would be kept open, even if the local authority approved the application, as long as work had not commenced.
But by way of encouragement to my hon. Friends, perhaps I should state that the position was set out clearly in the draft circular which the department sent to the local authority associations on 25 September and was repeated in circular 28/84 sent out by the Department on 12 November.
There are Airey owners who have already applied under the discretionary scheme and. whose applications have not yet been brought to a conclusion either in the start of repairs under an approval for grant, or by the completion of repurchase.
The present package of orders, including the draft order before the House now, deals with cases in which owners of Airey houses have already applied for assistance by means of grant under the discretionary scheme. We believe it is sensible, so far as the local authorities are concerned, that the detailed arrangements for such people should be brought into line with the provisions applying under the statutory scheme.
The orders which were subject to negative resolution, to which I referred just now, have the effect of limiting the availability of repairs grants under the 1974 Act to Airey owners who have applied by 30 November; and of setting the eligible expense limit for cases which proceed under the revised arrangements, but in respect of which grant has not yet been approved, at £14,000 throughout the country. This brings the limit into line with the expenditure limit set under the Housing Defects Act for the statutory scheme.
The Act provides that the Exchequer contribution towards reinstatement grants paid by authorities under the statutory scheme should be at the rate of 90 per cent.
The draft order before the House brings the discretionary scheme into line by providing that the Exchequer contribution in respect of grants approved after 1 December should also be at the rate of 90 per cent.
I apologise for having to take up the House's time in explaining the background to this draft order. I can see that what is going on is not immediately obvious to the layman. Procedurally, the position is complicated. But our purpose is relatively simple: to achieve consistency of treatment of grants for the repair of Airey houses, whether in the case of discretionary grants which can continue to be given under the 1974 Act or under the statutory scheme provided by the Housing Defects Act.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I understand the queries to the Minister, although the way in which some questions were put to him was less than fair. The Minister tried his best to explain a bad case. It is unacceptable for the Minister to come to the House on 27 November to make a statement that affects several hundreds of people who thought that they had another nine or 12 months to make a decision.
Airey house owners did not expect to have only a couple of days in which to make a decision, without all the facts being available. They do not know whether they will receive better treatment under the statutory scheme, because that scheme is not the same as the voluntary scheme.
I welcome the opportunity for hon. Members with Airey houses in their constituencies to raise the issue once again. The Minister said that about 25,000 such houses were built in the public sector in the United Kingdom. They are spread amongst at least 189 housing authorities. The latest note concerning distribution is dated 23 November 1981 and does not include Birmingham. Birmingham built 88 Airey houses and 28 of them are in my constituency.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who cannot be here tonight, confirmed a few miunutes ago that he helped build Airey houses in his constituecy. Mansfield is not on the list deposited in the Library. Will the Minister place more updated information in the Library?
I accept that about 10 per cent. of Airey houses were built in Leeds, the base of the Airey company. Only 123 of the 189 authorities on the list built 200 or more. The average is 116, and only 59 authorities built more than 169 houses. Most of them built only in tens or twenties. Perhaps someone went round the country telling local authorities, "We have built a lot in Leeds. Why don't you try some out to see how things go?". Some authorities built fewer than 10 Airey houses.
Purchasers have the choice of selling back to the local authority. That scheme might solve one immediate problem—that of owning an unmarketable asset. But it does not solve all the problems. What happens if the local authority fails to repair the house sold to it? That problem will have to be solved when the legislation takes full effect.
What will happen to people who have sold back to the council and who wish to remain in their home? Before I knew about tonight's order I received a letter from a constituent dated 20 November. My constituent had sold his house back to the council and was a retired skilled building worker. He said:
however, we are very concerned as to the safety aspect of the structural deterioration.
Five of the six columns that are exposed in the house have long cracks running upwards from below floor levels … These are becoming increasingly worse as time goes by.
Last Friday, after crawling around under the house, I found cracks 15 in or 16 in long running from the base of the floor. The fact that the owner has sold his house back to the council does not solve his problem. He may be living in a house that is unsafe due to the deterioration of the pillars. He has spent a considerable amount on his house, and is reluctant to continue extending and improving that property because he does not know what will happen to the house in the medium to long term.
The Under-Secretary of State referred to some of the limits that the Treasury has placed on expenditure. I understand that the estimated average market value cost of repurchase at the time the Housing Defects Bill and the Airey schemes were being considered was put at £1,800 per dwelling. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to respond to the circular issued to hon. Members by Shelter. The organisation highlights the case of two Airey houses in a council area near London which were originally sold for £8,000. They have just been valued at £38,000 and £54,000 respectively. What is the position when such valuations are put on houses either before Friday, when the present scheme lapses, or after Friday when the statutory scheme starts? What has been the expenditure to date?
I understand the logic of the Government's argument in trying to match the 90 per cent. reimbursement to local authorities with the measures in the statutory scheme. The fact is that, whichever way one looks at this, local authorities now get 100 per cent. of what they spent on the refurbishment or repurchase and, after Friday, they will get 90 per cent. That is a cut. How much money has been spent by local authorities, reimbursed in full by the Government, to update the scheme for voluntary sales back to local authorities? The Under-Secretary of State should have that information available to him from the Treasury.
What happens to someone who does not sell back and decides to take a gamble that his house will be OK? The adjoining half of the property may still be in the hands of the local authority. If only 10 per cent. of the houses have been sold, the chances are nine to one that the other half of the property is in the hands of the local authority. The owner will not be able to sell, even if he has had repairs done. The building societies will not offer a mortgage to any potential purchaser if the joint structure has not been dealt with completely. It behoves the Under-Secretary of State to give an update on the discussions about a warranty scheme that have been taking place with the National House Building Council and the Building Societies Association. As I understand it, unless all the houses in a block-whether there are two or four-are dealt with, it does not matter if one or two owner-occupied houses have been repaired. Those owner-occupied properties are unsaleable if the adjoining properties are in local authority hands and the local authority has not had the resources to carry out repairs.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman said that someone might take a gamble and go for reinstatement and then discover that the property was not mortgageable. In those circumstances, the person would not have been able to get a reinstatement grant under the Act. The Act clearly states that, unless the property is mortgageable, reinstatement is not available. In those circumstances, repurchase would be the only option under the Act, so the person would not be in the position to take a gamble.

Mr. Rooker: I do not think that it is as clear as that. If a house were mortgageable as an individual property—the valuations were correct and the cost of putting it right fell within the guidelines—there would still be a problem, if adjoining houses were owned by a local authority that, because of restrictions on its expenditure had not been able to repair its properties. Would building societies give a mortgage on that owner-occupied property? I understand that they would not do that. That is why the Government are having discussions with the building societies. Perhaps the Minister will expand on his intervention when he winds up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the Earl of Avon, told the Institute of Housing in Birmingham last week:
There is still a large element of speculation in many of the statements which are made about the scale of defects … Where there are no facts, then let us see what can be done to obtain the information necessary to paint as complete and as accurate picture as possible … So far as I am aware, there is no firm evidence of the number of dwellings affected … Few authorities have this information in respect of their own stock".
Given that the Housing Defects Act is about to come into force, I find the Ministers's comments complacent. He spoke about resources and said:
it is unsound to argue that repairs to defective dwellings, for example, are going to cost £X millions if the extent of the problem has not been established.
The Minister quoted the Building Research Establishment's conclusion that it will often be 10 or 20 years or more before the processes of deterioration result in physical damage. He then argued:
The costs of repairs should therefore be considered in the context of general repair programmes
of local authorities. That is not good enough for Airey houses or for any of the houses covered by the Housing Defects Act.
No one can contradict me when I say that extra responsibilities are being imposed on local authorities as a result of the discovery, after all these years, that several hundred thousand non-traditional dwellings may be subject to structural defects and they will all require individual inspection. That was never budgeted for by local authority housing departments. It behoves the Government to give local authorities the extra resources required to carry out their responsibilities. They should not have to take money from existing programmes for housing improvement grants, general repairs and so on.
The required expenditure could be massive. Therefore, local authorities must be given the money to enable them to check on the scale of the problem. The Earl of Avon says that the problem must be investigated, but the Government withhold from local authorities the resources to enable them to find out the facts.
Before we are asked to consider any orders under the Housing Defects Act, Ministers must assure us that they will give local authorities the wherewithal to carry out their new responsibilities. Without that, a fraud will be perpetrated on the people in the operation of the Housing

Defects Act. Many people think that because that legislation affects all non-traditional properties except Airey houses, action will be taken soon about their dwellings whether the occupiers are local authority tenants or owner-occupiers. That is not the case.
Unless the Government are prepared to put resources behind their Act, it will be seen as a fraud. I do not want that to happen, because there are a lot of worried people living in non-traditional homes. They are entitled to understand and believe that, having passed the legislation, Parliament will give the local authorities the necessary resources to ensure that the legislation becomes as effective as hon. Members thought it was when it was passed by the House of Commons.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I start by declaring an interest. I am a vice-president of the Building Societies Association, and I regret the fact that the building societies movement, through the constituent societies, has placed a blanket blight on the 25,000 properties that we are discussing tonight. Undoubtedly, there are a number that are inherently defective; there are an even greater number that are sound in wind and limb.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment. I also pay tribute to the Government for having 'peen the first Government for a generation to acknowledge that a significant number of system-built houses that have been available to rent and to purchase since the war have defects. The Government came to the House and announced, I think in September 1982, following a campaign by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members, that the defects existed. It is right that we should place on record our gratitude, on behalf of our constituents, for the fact that the Government have made a significant sum available to try to reinstate and rehabilitate the properties, and to reinstate and rehabilitate the quality of life of the former tenants.
In the Radio 4 interview this morning to which my hon. Friend referred, I said that the bureaucratic left hand seemed not to know what the administrative right hand was doing. I do not apologise for that remark and I do not retract that sentiment. It is extraordinary that on the one bureaucratic hand we are dealing with the small print of circular 6/83, published on 14 February 1983, which, as my hon. Friend pointed out—he was right to correct me—said that former tenants, now owner-occupiers of the Airey houses, do not have the right to sell back. Nevertheless, paragraph 29 of that circular sets out clearly that an application to repurchase must be received by the local authority by 7 September 1985. That surely implies that the owner-occupier has a right. All he is obliged to do is to tell the local authority, in the words of paragraph 29, and his application to repurchase must have been received by the local authority by that date.
The draft circular was sent out by the Department in September, when the majority of senior personnel in local authority housing departments throughout the country were probably on holiday, or recovering from being on holiday, and therefore were not in a position to brief the Association of District Councils, which was not fully staffed to be able to brief the constituent local housing authorities to tell their councillors and the people affected of the terms, which differ from and contradict—beneficially, I agree—those of circular 28/84.
The debate highlights the fact that the procedure, though generous in intent, is itself far from defect-free. I submit to my hon. Friend that all owner-occupiers of Airey houses should have had and still should have the right to sell their properties back to the local authorities, and that those local authorities should have a statutory duty to buy them back. Otherwise, it makes nonsense of the intent of circular 6/83.
Is it not nonsense that two circulars should be in existence simultaneously and that one of them, if it does not contradict the other, certainly conflicts with it?
Why is a former tenant, who has exercised his statutory right to buy, to receive only 95 per cent. of the defect-free value in compensation? Surely the whole basis of compensation enshrined in the Land Compensation Act 1973 was that anyone affected by some act for which he or she was not responsible should be placed in the same position after the event as he or she was before it. Therefore, because there is an inevitable blight on all these properties, district valuers—being the admirable human beings that they are—will subconsciously subtract perhaps 5 per cent. from the value of the property. Therefore, the owner-occupier should receive 105 per cent. of the defect-free value compensation less the 5 per cent. tolerance, to bring it back to 100 per cent.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to the position of the owner-occupier who sells back to the local authority but remains in the property as a tenant. I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that, having once more become a tenant, that person will be entitled to the credit of the subsequent years occupation should he or she wish to exercise the right to buy another property from a local authority.
My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. P. Ward of 12 Beech gardens, Lichfield, look forward to receiving my hon. Friend's unequivocal and unqualified confirmation that they will be entitled to receive compensation based on current market value, provided that they exercise—I chose my words carefully—those rights that were enshrined in principle in both the circulars but not in law before 7 September next year, and that in so doing they will not lose any of the discount that they could have lost if they were forced to tell the local authority before the close of business this Friday, 30 November, that they would otherwise have had to sell back their property.
Provided that my hon. Friend can give that assurance, hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will leave tonight replete and content in the knowledge that all our constituents will have enjoyed the right of compensation that they rightfully deserve.

Mr. Robert Litherland: In debates on the Housing Defects Act 1984, both in this Chamber and in Committee, it was always accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House and other interested parties that the Government's intention to bring the Act into force as soon as possible was a welcome move. I doubt whether the Airey house owners will welcome its being brought to fruition so quickly through this variation order.
Opposition Members have always argued that the Act has immense limitations. It is not all-embracing and does

not address itself to the real problems confronting local authorities that have major housing problems caused by system-built defective housing.
When the Act comes into force on 1 December it will assist owner-occupiers such as owners of Airey houses who have purchased in good faith from local authorities and then found the properties to have latent defects. There is no argument about that, and I say good luck to them. After all, they bought the houses in good faith.
Local authorities also had those houses built in good faith, mainly due to promptings from various Governments with the offers of subsidies if they built system-built, package-deal housing. That housing was seen as the panacea of all our housing ills in the 1950s, 1960s and the early 1970s. That high density living accommodation did not solve the problems that then existed and has since created other problems.
The Act and the order do not even begin to scratch the surface of the problem. In one of its submissions to the Minister the Association of Metropolitan Authorities claimed that about £10 billion would be needed to put right the defects in post-war non-traditional housing. As we have stressed from the outset, it is not what is in the Act but what is left out. The Government's efforts may be welcome, but they are feeble in the extreme.
Shelter has highlighted the deficiencies in the repair schemes for this type of property and the delay in bringing forward a properly accepted scheme. Indeed, Shelter doubts whether the Act can operate until suitable arrangements have been made to test and approve potential repair methods. Even if a scheme were acceptable to the National House Building Council and the Building Societies Association were devised, it would come well after 1 December, when the Act comes into force.
As a result of that delay, Airey houses and other system-built properties will have to be repurchased. Bringing the Act into force before a suitable scheme for approving and assuring repair methods is in operation will cause many problems, not least an increase in the financial cost to local authorities. If no scheme has come to fruition and a large number of applications come forward for repurchase the financial burden will be very heavy indeed and the NHBC repair scheme could fall by the wayside. If councils have to find the capital cost of reinstatement grants without financial assistance from the Government in their housing investment programme allocations-the Chancellor's autumn statement made it clear that there would be cuts and there would be cuts and there is bound to be a further reduction in housing investment, especially in 1985–86—housing departments will be forced to pass on the burden to other areas of the housing programme.
Under the Act, payments to owner-occupiers in respect of defective housing will become mandatory. Local authority owned defective housing may therefore suffer because concils cannot meet repair costs. The order epitomises the distinction made by the Government between owner-occupiers and council tenants. It is an unsatisfactory approach to this massive problem because it deals only with a very limited number of properties. I cannot for the life of me understand how the properties are designated. What is the difference between Airey housing or any of the other types designated and the properties on Wellington street estate in my constituency, to which I have referred many times in the House and in Committee,


which were built by Bison Northern Concrete only 12 years ago but are being knocked down by bulldozers right now. How much more defective can housing be?
The Government are dealing with a limited number of dwellings because they are interested only in the value of property. That is why there is discrimination. The Government are obsessed with money values. Where are their social values? Where is their consideration for council tenants who have to endure the misery of poorly-constructed, condensation-ridden properties which are expensive and difficult to heat? A lady came to see me because her husband was coming out of Christie hospital dying of cancer into a fungus-ridden flat in one of these system built properties. We had to bring in direct labour to modernise the property. [interruption.] It is no laughing matter.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I did not say that it was.

Mr. Litherland: The property had to be decorated so that a man could die with some dignity.
The Minister knows that the problem exists. He saw a small fraction of it on his last visit to Manchester, although he will not come to visit Wellington street.

Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend has not been asked—and the estate has been knocked down.

Mr. Litherland: I have sent many invitations to the Minister, but he has refused to come to Wellington street or to authorise a public investigation.
The building societies are not willing to give mortgages on such properties. The owner-occupiers who live on defective housing estates have no chance of selling their properties. I should like to quote from an article in the magazine Building of 23 November.
Ever since the scope of the problem became lcmown, it was seen as a potentially major setback to the Government's council house sales policy.
That is the Government's real concern.
To prevent this two things were considered vital: to provide for repairs to defective units and to ensure that following the repairs the properties would be mortgageable … But the question of saleability was proving tricky, as building societies made it plain that they would not consider PRC homes—even after repairs—to be an acceptable risk for mortgage purposes unless they came with some kind of warranty.
There is no proper repair scheme, and no warranty. The problem is immense and the Government's remedy is futile. There is a vast proportion of system-build in my constituency and every day the situation deteriorates. Manchester is only one of seven authorities that have decided to demolish Bison wall frame housing. Other systems are in the pipeline for demolition, and many other authorities with various system schemes will demolish unless extra money is forthcoming.
The Government recognise the unfairness for the private owner. They should also recognise the unfairness to local authorities which built the houses in good faith on the recommendation of past Governments. They should recognise that the vast majority of those living in defective and potentially defective homes are tenants, and that those tenants have been overlooked by the Government.
Local authorities such as Manchester want financial support for planned repair programmes or, where necessary, demolition. The Housing Defects Act 1984 and the variation order merely tinker with the problem. The Government are using the proverbial piece of Elastoplast when the patient is bleeding to death.

Mr. Conal Gregory: Airey homes are one of at least 26 types of prefabricated reinforced concrete housing. At the time of construction, builders believed that reinforced concrete would last for a very long time. As we now know only too well, this is not the case. In my own division of York, there are some 199 Airey and Unity houses. There are also Orlit houses and others not under immediate consideration. Many of the houses have been well looked after and improved. Many of the couples who have come to see me in my surgery or have been in contact with me have their life savings wrapped up in those homes. Those people will listen to this debate with considerable concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) correctly declared his interest, but he skated over the role of the Building Societies Association, which I believe has been rather too cautious. A great deal of professional expertise could have been directed towards helping the people of York and many other areas.
It is curious that, although there might be a mortgage on a property, when the owner wishes to move because of a job or hospital commitments, the building societies show him the door. Moreover, prospective purchasers who have had a survey done at their own expense are also shown the door. Where is the caring attitude and the professional skill there? Surely a body such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which is often employed by building societies or other bodies, could have produced a voluntary scheme. There must be a note of disappointment about an appropriate scheme not having been developed.
The difficulty is that owners of the homes which we are discussing are immobile. Some live in caravans in other parts of the country because they have had to leave their home, although they have a purchaser in mind. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether such people are likely to get professional help and whether, through discussions with the Building Societies Association, mobility will be possible.
The order refers to a reduction from 100 per cent. to 90 per cent. in the Government's support to local authorities for the cost repurchase or grant. Why should Government support not be as generous as the 100 per cent. on the Airey scheme for grant and repurchase? Why is it not the 105 per cent. of which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) spoke? I hope that he will speak in similar terms when he is wearing his other hat in the Building Societies Association. There is a need for proper compensation. The Government first announced a scheme to help private owners of Airey houses that had been purchased from a local authority as long ago as 7 September 1982. Well over two years later, there is still anxiety. Will my hon. Friend use his good offices to publicise, through the lobby press, what a good scheme he is offering? There is much anxiety among professional housing managers about how it works and the length of time envisaged. Home owners ask us for clarification and information, which is difficult to come by unless one reads professional housing publications.
The studies by the Building Research Establishment are professional. There should be a professional approach by those who want to help investors own their own horn. I trust that, through the publicity of this debate and otherwise, we can relieve the tension and anxiety of people who have bought these homes.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) complimented the Government on two counts. I can agree with him on one—that they recognised the scale of the problem and brought forward the Housing Defects Act 1984. I cannot agree with him on the second, which is that the Government have provided the resources to deal with the problem. There is no evidence to suggest that the Government have produced extra funds nationally to assist hard-pressed local authorities. It is no use recognising the massive problems of local authorities—Leeds has the major problem—without taking account of the variation between one local authority and another.
The order will not make much difference to the financial problems of local authorities, but what difference it makes is for the worse. It was the Government's express wish that, wherever possible, the owner should receive a repairs grant rather than have his or her home repurchased. That is a legitimate wish, but most of the people involved are far too shrewd and sensible to accede to the Government's wish because, unfortunately, the Government's wish does not help them in the long run.
In Leeds, for example, four out of five of those who have found themselves in this position have applied to have their houses repurchased by the local authority. Only 56 repair grants have been made in Leeds. I accept that there might be a few more in the pipeline. However, no fewer than 311 properties have had to be repurchased by the local authority at a cost of about £5·25 million. That substantial capital sum is set against Leed's future housing allocation. A local authority that is facing the problem of Airey houses and other reinforced concrete houses will not be able to cope without the provision of extra finance.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that the valuation of such houses in the London area was from £38,000 to £54,000. The average repurchase price in Leeds is slightly more than £;16,000 and the repairs to each house are costing on average £11,500. There is an obvious differential. The precedent that is being set by the treatment of Airey houses may well extend to other types of house and that factor is worrying Leeds and other authorities. They are afraid that they will be forced to repurchase the houses without the provision of extra capital. It will be impossible to find the sums involved.
It seems that the Government's approach to repair grants encompasses three different criteria. First, the Minister mentioned the availability of a mortgage if the repairs have been carried out. The other two criteria are equally important. The first of them is that there should be an economic consideration, in other words, an owner should not be placed in financial hardship. The average sum being found by owners is about £2,500. There are many owners who would be unable to find such a sum so they would be excluded under one criterion.
The third criterion is that of a 30-year life. Given our experience of system-built houses, we would be hard pressed to say that in all cases the houses will be satisfactory for a further 30 years. The solution that has been found by the Leeds council may well put its Airey houses in that category but the rest remain imponderables. The council's technical experts are expressing doubts about being able to find a solution for other similar types

of house. This means that fewer than 20 per cent. will be taking up the repair grant option. Virtually everyone may ask for his house to be repurchased by the local authority.
The most bizarre factor is the right to buy, which was referred to by the hon. Members for Perry Barr and for Mid-Staffordshire. If a person asks for his house to be repurchased by the local authority and he is eligible for discount because he has lived in it for two years, the local authority cannot include the cost of the dwelling's renovation in the valuation. The occupier will be able to buy the house back from the local authority, after the authority has spent about £;11,500 to repair it at current prices, without having to pay any part of those costs. What incentive is there for anyone to apply for a repair grant when that sort of provision is available under the Act? The order is unlikely to have any real effect. Its only effect is likely to be detrimental to local authorities.
The building societies are somewhat remiss in the extent of their caution, which extends beyond the physical problems of the dwellings. At a meeting of officials of the Leeds city council and the building societies, the building society representatives said that they would want a warranty, which in its way was understandable. They said also that it would not be sufficient for all the houses or one block to be treated. They wanted the entire neighbourhood to be treated. That way, people who examine the aesthetic appearance of the houses could say that they were mortgageable. If that is the extent of the caution, I fear that the number of people who will fulfil the criteria for repair grants will be few and far between. I suspect that the Government's desire to encourage people to seek repairs grants rather than repurchases, will not be fulfilled, even with Airey houses. It will be even less the case for other PRC houses.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I assure the Minister that I understood every word he said until we heard the usual gobbledegook that confuses most people until they get a Philadelphian lawyer to interpret it. No matter which policies are advocated, they will not materialise unless there is cash to back them. Therefore, Airey-type house owners can only be frustrated by the Government's policies.
I wonder whether the Minister would consult some history books to see how the prefab problem was resolved. It was a more enormous problem than this one. Yet, with the co-operation of tenants, the councils and the Government resolved it satisfactorily. Every time we consider Airey housing and improvement grants, more problems seem to have accumulated. It may be helpful if the Minister looked at history books to see how the prefab problem was resolved.
If Airey housing were found in Conservative constituencies, the Department of the Environment might be a little more helpful in attempting to resolve the problem. I cannot understand why, when the problem is so acute, the Department of the Environment cannot provide more relief. On 1 December, when the Department of the Environment has played the publicity game, a mass of people may queue at local authorities' doors expecting grants or expecting the authorities to purchase their houses. We will again be using local authorities as whipping boys.
In Doncaster there are many houses of the semidetached type. One was bought privately, but the others


remain in the public sector. If we resolve the problem in the private sector, how will the private owner react if the local authority cannot rectify the problem next door? Building societies will look keenly at possible damage when they give a mortgage.
A few days ago, the National Coal Board, which owns many Airey-type houses, was in the process of selling 11 of them, when the local authority bought the remaining stock. Those 11 tenants are now in limbo because the board is still the owner of the property. Could they get a grant, or will the NCB use some of the money which we granted it last night to rectify the problem?
The housing investment programme allocation is all-important. Without a reasonable cake, there are many problems. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has used the public sector as a whipping boy in seeking to save a few bob. Building firms in my constituency and the rest of Doncaster are interested in what is to happen to Airey houses because, as the cake diminishes, so does the number of building firms and the employment they provide in the constituency.
If we treat Airey house owners favourably, how will other people in the public sector react? Doncaster metropolitan district council has a marvellous tenants' association that covers the whole of the borough. There are well in excess of 170 branches and they will want to have a say if money starts going to Airey houses alone. Private sector improvement grants were held up in August 1983 because the cash had run out. There are 8,000 applications for improvement grants in the pipeline at present. There is a bob or two involved there.
The council owns 680 Airey-type houses and there are 200 in the private sector. There are also 35,000 council houses, some of which need repair. We can tinker with the cake, but unless it is increased the problem will become worse.
I hope that the Minister will return to his Department and get a few more pounds for a worthy scheme.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I do not intend to delay the House for many minutes; I am essentially a populist and I realise that the Tories are somewhat tired of talking about housing, because it is not a problem that normally affects them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Ban (Mr. Rooker) said that he found the Minister's contribution somewhat difficult to understand. I disagree with my hon. Friend, because I thought that it was typical of all Conservative contributions on housing—restrictive and dogmatic. It is restrictive because it recognises a problem, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) said, but does little about it. The proposals do not substantially help those who bought Airey houses. The measure is restrictive in its approach to local authorities by reducing the amount of grant available from 100 to 90 per cent.
The measure is restrictive in another respect, which has been mentioned by Conservative Members, because it introduces a time scale which will make it almost impossible for many people to exercise the right that the Government have grudgingly given them. It is ideological in another sense, and that is typical of the Tory approach. We seem to be interested in only one section—roughly

10 per cent. of the people who live in system-built houses. They are those who made the mistake of buying those houses.
The Tory party has a great deal to answer for. The Tories come here tonight wringing their hands about the problems that those people now face, but I expect that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) spent a good deal of time going to local authority tenants saying, "Buy your council house. It is a good buy." That was bad advice. I would not go running to him for professional advice. He does not have to declare and define his interest to me, because I have seen the type of political advice that he gives.
Those of the hon. Member's constituents who decided to buy their council houses as a result of his political persuasion must have a great deal to regret, financially and in many other respects.
The Government are not bothered about the 17,600 houses in Leeds that were built with steel or concrete components, or about the 5,018 timber-framed houses. The Government are reducing the amount of money available to Leeds and other authorities for public sector build. When the Minister replies, I should like to hear him say that he is concerned about the problems of the tenants living in that accommodation. We have not yet heard that from the Government.
A few weeks ago, I went to a meeting of tenants who live in system-built housing in Leeds. The tenants told me that their winter heating bill last year—before the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased electricity charges—was £250. The Yorkshire electricity board sent along experts to find out the reason for those high bills on the Halton Moor estate in Leeds. The reason was not the failure of the electricity board, but the defective housing in which the tenants were living.
The Government have a responsibility to those people, but at the moment the Government are running away from that responsibility. Leeds city council has judged that it will take £160 million to deal with the defective system-built housing in the city. I should like the Minister to talk not just about the small percentage of people who have bought Airey houses, but about all those—owner-occupiers and tenants—who live in defective houses. If the Government do that, we shall believe that they take the problem seriously. At the moment, they are hidebound and blinded by ideology and their restricted approach.

Sir George Young: With the leave of the House, I shall try to deal with some of the points that have been raised. We are talking about the marrying of two schemes. Scheme one is discretionary, applies only to owners of Airey houses, and is due to run out next year. Scheme two is statutory, applies to Airey house owners and other defined house types and runs for another 10 years. We are trying to marry the two schemes, and avoid the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), who said that the Government are in a contradictory position in having two circulars running at the same time.
Scheme two is, by and large, a better scheme, as it is a statutory one that gives people rights, and the terms of compensation are more generous. In particular—this is in reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft)—there is the possibility of 100 per cent.


grants to owner-occupiers under the statutory scheme where there is financial hardship, which there is not under the discretionary scheme.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) asked about the HIP allocations for Doncaster, and some other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) asked about the position of local authority tenants. The Government have made it clear that if local authorities will tell us what they think that their obligations are for their own stock, we shall take this into account in making HIP allocations next year.
However, the local authority tenant is in a different position from the owner-occupier. The latter cannot move, whereas the tenant can, and the owner-occupier has lost his savings, whereas the tenant has not. Without a scheme, the resources to put a building right are not there for an owner-occupier, whereas a local authority has resources at its command. There is not a direct parallel between the position of the owner-occupier and the local authority tenant.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West doubted whether properties would be reinstated. I have seen, in Doncaster, some Airey-type houses that have been reinstated satisfactorily. Expertise is being developed by the building industry to restore Airey-type houses and, I hope, others, to a high standard that will last for 30 years, and be mortgageable. I am not sure that that would be the position in the circumstances that the hon. Member outlined.
I was asked why there is not a 100 per cent. contribution to the owner-occupier. It is reasonable that, when the taxpayer is bearing 90 per cent. of the cost, the owner-occupier who, before the Act, would have to bear the 100 per cent. costs himself, should be looked to for the 10 per cent. We have made provisions for that 10 per cent. to be made available by the local authority in cases of hardship. That 90 per cent. provision is a generous scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire asked about the position of one of his constituents. The best advice that I can give him is to advise his constituent to keep his options open by applying before 1 December. If he does that, he will have the benefit of both the statutory and the discretionary schemes. He made the point about the right to buy, a point that was made by other hon. Members. If a property is repurchased by the local authority and the owner-occupier becomes a tenant and stays in that building, he will subsequently have the right to buy on broadly the terms outlined by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Heddle: Will my hon. Friend clarify one point so that we can have it on the record? If my constituent keeps his options open and takes the advice that has just been given from the Dispatch Box and applies to the Lichfield district council by the close of business on Friday, will my hon. Friend confirm that he will not forfeit 10-months' worth of discount by obliging the local authority to repurchase in advance of 7 September 1985, which discount, if he waited until that time, under the original circular 6/83, he would not have forfeited in any event?

Sir George Young: I am not fully familiar with my hon. Friend's constituents, but the crucial date is the date of completion of the bargain. That would dictate the discount that would be repayable.
My hon. Friend made a slightly Freudian slip in his remarks when he said that he felt people should still have

the right to sell back under the discretionary scheme. However, he corrected himself later and said that there is no such right under the discretionary scheme. One is dependent on the co-operation of the local authorities.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Parr (Mr. Rooker) asked for up-to-date information about the distribution of Airey houses. We are dependent on the local authorities for such information. The latest list is in the Library and I understand that that is dated November 1983. We have written to local authorities for that information and we can do no better than bring together the figures which they provide to my Department.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West implied that reinstatement grant would be the method of assistance for Airey houses. I am not sure whether that will be the case. It depends whether a successful claim can be made under section 3(5), and whether the authority considers the repaired house to be mortgageable.
That brings me to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and others about the NHBC and the BSA. I understand that there is a meeting tomorrow between those two bodies. They will be discussing the possible production of a certificate which will get round the problem of mortgageability and the resaleability of a property that has been improved. I share the views expressed by several hon. Members about the desirability of a scheme on those lines.

Mr. Gregory: In the course of clarification, may I seek my hon. Friend's assurance? Will that be for a long enough period to satisfy the building societies? At present, I understand that they are looking for one of some 30 years. The NHBC cover is normally for 10 years. Unless we can bring the two parties together my constituents and others will still be in the unfortunate position of having mortgaged their properties to building societies which are not prepared to put that money up again to prospective purchasers.

Sir George Young: I think that I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he wants. If one takes the position that he has just described, and if after reinstatement his constituent were not able to sell his property with vacant posession on terms where a mortgage would be available on satisfactory terms with a lending institution to a new buyer, he would be entitled to sell the property back to the local authority. That is clearly stated in clause 3.
There is no change in the rate of grant of 90 per cent. to the owner-occupier between the discretionary and statutory scheme. All the order does is change the contribution that the Government make to the local authority. It was 100 per cent. because the original scheme was discretionary and unless 100 per cent. reimbursement were offered by the Government there was a feeling that the local authorities would not have collaborated in a discretionary scheme.
I was asked how much had been spent under the scheme and how many people had been assisted. We do not have exact figures on the number of people who have been assisted. The information that we have is based on claims made by authorities for Exchequer contribution. Those claims are normally made in advance. In other words, they are estimates by the authorities of the numbers likely to apply and the likely split between repairs and repurchase. The number of repairs and repurchases for which local


authorities have submitted claims to my Department is 750. I was asked how much has been paid in contributions. Our estimate is that about £4·5 million will have been paid by the end of this financial year, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with further details when I have them.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr spoke, I think, about a tenant in an Airey house that was owned by the local authority. Of course a local authority has a statutory responsibility for maintenance and common law responsibilities in respect of the safety of property. That might be the solution for that tenant.
I was asked about the owner's ability to meet his part of the grant. I have explained that the local authority can pay 100 per cent. under the defects legislation. It was also assumed that owners would have a choice of repurchase or grant. But a reading of the Act shows that that is not so. The onus is on reinstatement, and only if reinstatement is not practicable in the way that has been described does one turn to repurchase. As was rightly pointed out, much depends on the building society's attitude.
The hon. Member for Leeds. Central asked whether the Government are concerned about local authority tenants. Of course we are, but the Act and the order concern owner-occupiers and it would not be right to have a long debate about local authority tenants tonight.
I have tried to deal with the points raised. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) extended an invitation to me to visit some property. I was not quite sure whether it had been demolished. I visit Manchester regularly. I was in Oldham last month, where a very enlightened Labour-controlled local authority sold an entire council estate to a private developer, who modernised it and was selling it on to very proud owner-occupiers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence to persuade Manchester city council to apply that sort of solution to some of the local authority estates in that city.
I hope that the House will approve the order.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 84.

Division No. 24]
[11.45 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Chapman, Sydney


Ancram, Michael
Chope, Christopher


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Coombs, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Cope, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Corrie, John


Bellingham, Henry
Dicks, Terry


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dorrell, Stephen


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dover, Den


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dunn, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Durant, Tony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Favell, Anthony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bright, Graham
Franks, Cecil


Brinton, Tim
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bruinvels, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Heddle, John


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hind, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howard, Michael





Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jessel, Toby
Sims, Roger


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Key, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Speller, Tony


Knox, David
Spencer, Derek


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lilley, Peter
Stanley, John


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Steen, Anthony


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Macfarlane, Neil
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


MacGregor, John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Maclean, David John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Madel, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Major, John
Sumberg, David


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Maples, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mather, Carol
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Merchant, Piers
Thurnham, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Tracey, Richard


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Waddington, David


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Walden, George


Moynihan, Hon C.
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Murphy, Christopher
Waller, Gary


Neale, Gerrard
Ward, John


Needham, Richard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Newton, Tony
Warren, Kenneth


Nicholls, Patrick
Watson, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Whitfield, John


Parris, Matthew
Whitney, Raymond


Pollock, Alexander
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Powley, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wolfson, Mark


Raffan, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Yeo, Tim


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sackville, Hon Thomas



Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr. Ian Lang and


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. Michael Neubert.




NOES


Alton, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Ashdown, Paddy
Deakins, Eric


Barnett, Guy
Dewar, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dixon, Donald


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dormand, Jack


Benn, Tony
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Eastham, Ken


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Blair, Anthony
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bruce, Malcolm
Home Robertson, John


Canavan, Dennis
Howells, Geraint


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clay, Robert
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cohen, Harry
Kirkwood, Archy


Conlan, Bernard
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Edward


Cowans, Harry
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKelvey, William


Dalyell, Tam
McWilliam, John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Marek, Dr John






Maxton, John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Meadowcroft, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, William
Smith, C,(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stott, Roger


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Gavin


Park, George
Straw, Jack


Parry, Robert
Torney, Tom


Patchett, Terry
Wallace, James


Penhaligon, David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter
Wareing, Robert


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Welsh, Michael


Prescott, John
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart



Redmond, M.
Tellers for the Noes:


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Allen McKay.


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Grants by Local Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contributions) (Repairs Grant for Airey Houses) (Variation) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 22nd October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

NATIONAL HERITAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of any provision of the said Act.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Okehampton Bypass

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): We now come to the Exeter-Launceston-Bodmin trunk road (compulsory purchase orders).

Sir Peter Mills: In view of the assurances that have been given to me in writing concerning a prayer in another place, I am satisfied that it would not be appropriate for me to move this motion tonight, but I reserve my position in the future.

Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I am delighted at this welcome news and would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) on making it possible, is it in order for the measure to remain on the Order Paper, occupying valuable space? As the order expires next Tuesday, will you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the Leader of the House is in the Chamber, that the order should be removed from the Order Paper?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the order will be taken from the Order Paper, in view of the comment by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills).

Bridge of Don Barracks, Gordon

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I sought this debate after the Minister of Defence announced during the summer recess— which was not untypical of the Ministry—that it would be closing the Bridge of Don barracks in my constituency. It emerged later that that would effectively end the training of Scottish junior soldiers in Scotland—a process which has gone on since the founding of the Scottish regiments 200 years ago—and that it would be transferred to, of all places, Newcastle.
I suggest that the training of Scottish soldiers should take place in Scotland and that the way in which the announcement was made was fairly typical of the Ministry of Defence. The decision was announced during a recess and without consultation. It was, in effect, a fait accompli.
The number of establishments for training junior soldiers will be reduced to 12, not one of which will be in Scotland. Even on the basis of proportion of population, 10 per cent. of 12 is more than one, but we are not to have even one training establishment— even though Scotland's proportion of recruits into the Army is higher than the national average. I remind the House, though no Scot would need reminding of it, that Newcastle is not Scotland.
I also criticise the Ministry of Defence for arguing that the case for closure of the barracks is a matter of economics, but giving no details of those economics. We have been asked to take the Ministry's word, and I am not prepared to do that. The only mention of a specific saving has been £8 million on capital costs. Compared with the defence budget, that is peanuts. Even compared with the training budget of £340 million, it is not a large sum. The Ministry has failed to make the case that that money will be saved.
The barracks are good barracks and have been invested in continually. Indeed, about £500,000 has been invested in them in the past year. [Interruption.] If hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench find the subject amusing, they should remember the traditions of the Scottish regiments and realise that I am discussing a major development on which they should be offering me their support, as a number of their colleagues have done.
Will the Minister give us more information about the alleged savings? Without further information, I am not prepared to accept the claim that the savings are substantial. Has the Minister taken account of other Army and Ministry of Defence changes that are likely to occur in north-east Scotland? The closure will mean that there are no barracks in north-east Scotland capable of taking a significant Army unit. How will the long-term needs of the Gordon Highlanders and the expanding TA be met?
Aberdeen is a major centre for North sea development and exploration and is, therefore, an important area in security terms. Has the Ministry of Defence consulted the Department of Energy, which, I understand, takes a different view of the matter?
This is not a party issue. When the closure was announced, I wrote to every hon. Member in Scotland and gained support for the retention of junior soldier training in Scotland from hon. Members of all the political parties

in Scotland, including a number of Conservative Members. A delegation visited Lord Trefgarne, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary who made the decision. That delegation included the hon. Members for Moray (Mr. Pollock) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) and Liberal, Conservative and Labour councillors. Unfortunately, it was an unsatisfactory meeting. It became clear that the Minister had not taken full account of the arguments and of the significance of the decision, and at one point he sought to equate our representations in a sympathetic way with some representation that he was receiving about the closing of an Army installation in Nottingham. If a Minister treats 200 years of Scottish tradition on that level, he fails to understand what the quotient of the Scottish contribution to the Army really is.
There is, of course, a local impact, although, even though the barracks is in my constituency, this is not the major component of the argument. It is regrettable that the decision will lead to the loss of 42 civilian jobs plus the impact of the loss of the barracks on the local economy. Although we in Aberdeen may be fortunate to have oil-related employment, we are getting a little fed up with the idea that because of that other jobs can cheerfully be destroyed. We want to maintain a diversity of employment within our area and we are riot prepared to allow those jobs to be destroyed; and those civilians will not easily find alternative employment.
The core of the argument is that the long-term tradition of the seven Scottish regiments is being undermined by the decision. They were founded in the 18th century. They were established to build on regional and national loyalties within Scotland. It might be worth reminding the House that this was after the two Jacobite risings when it was of some importance to try to channel feelings in the right direction.
Obviously, representing a constituency with the name of Gordon, I am by definition— and the area is by definition— closely associated with the Gordon Highlanders. That is of considerable importance in recognising the role of regiments on a regional basis within Scotland. The traditions of the Scottish infantryman, the tartan, the trews or the kilt, the pipes and the drums, are an essential component of the pride of Scotland and of the backbone of the British Army. It is a worthy tradition, over 200 years old, and is not to be lightly discarded. I believe that it has been a major factor in the high level of recruitment from within Scotland. The fact that the training takes place in Scotland is also important.
The lads and their parents identify with training in Aberdeen, the third city of Scotland. They know where they are. They know that they are "our boys" and not, as they will be in Newcastle, the "Jocks" who are being trained outside their own environment, and not really sustaining the full strength of the Scottish tradition, which should be carried on within Scotland, where it is the core of the infantry regiments.

Mr. Alexander Pollock: In the event that the hon. Gentleman's argument fails to find favour with the Minister—although I hope that the hon. Gentleman can persuade him to have a change of heart—I wonder what thought the hon. Gentleman may have given to an alternative use for the barracks. For example, has he any information about the facilities available to the TA at


present in the north-east, and how long its facilities may be available to it? Is that an aspect that perhaps the Ministry could explore for alternative use?

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Member and hope that the Minister will take account of his remarks. It is my understanding that the TA will require more facilities in Aberdeen. Indeed, the Gordon Highlanders have not yet settled on a permanent home within the city. To throw away the best Army premises within the north-east of Scotland at this stage would ultimately be a false economy which might lead to greater costs in the future. I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether these facts have been taken into account by the Ministry.
I remind the House that some years ago the Government attempted to disband the Scottish regiments altogether. That proposal was greeted with such a storm of protest, under the memorable slogan of "Save the Argylls", that the decision was averted. I can claim some connection with it, inasmuch as it was a former Member for the area I now represent, albeit a Conservative Member, "Mad Mitch", who played the leading part in that campaign.

Mr. Pollock: What about the role of the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger)?

Mr. Bruce: Indeed. I do not demur from that in any way. But "Mad Mitch" was himself an Argyll. The Government, having failed at that time to destroy the Scottish regiments head on, appear now to be trying to do it by stealth. They appear to believe that they can simply transfer the training outside Scotland and that we shall accept the consequences. We will not. I have already said that the campaign to persuade the Minister to reverse his decision has all-party and non-party support. The reaction and response from the Ministry of Defence are quite unsatisfactory, and do not show that it has taken account of the position. It gives no details of the savings that will be made.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman has justifiably commented on recruitment into the Scottish regiments, especially the Gordon Highlanders, who have a great tradition not only in Aberdeen but in the Highlands region. Many of those who are now serving or will serve in that regiment come from the highlands and islands of Scotland where there is no alternative employment. As with their grandfathers and fathers, they have always, by tradition, wanted to serve in a Scottish regiment. For the north-east of Scotland, especially my constituency of Banff and Buchan, the regiment means the Gordon Highlanders. The Government are taking a retrograde step in considering taking away the barracks.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and agree with his comments. It is ironic that whenever there is a rationalisation Scotland appears to lose out. Whenever there is a recession, recruitment in the Army rises, especially from areas where opportunities are more limited. Yet at a time when recruitment is rising, the Government slap us in the face and take the training away from Scotland, and destroy civilian jobs.
I regret that to date the MOD has got away with the decision because many Scots have not realised what it will

mean—the end of the training of Scottish junior soldiers in Scotland after 200 years. The explanation so far from the MOD has been inadequate and mealy-mouthed.
The Scottish regiments have served the British Army well and, by the decision, their tradition is being swept away with the excuse of short-term economics. The Scottish people will not tolerate Scottish soldiers being trained entirely outside Scotland. They want their junior soldiers to be trained in Scotland for Scottish regiments. The decision will seriously affect morale within the Army in Scotland and will seriously affect recruitment. I do not believe that the MOD has made a case that economies will, in fact, be achieved. I urge the Minister to recognise that the Scottish people want Scottish soldiers to be trained in Scotland, not in England.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): I fully recognise the importance of the contribution of the Scottish element of the armed forces to the armed forces as a whole—the Army in particular, but also the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. In my present responsibilities, I have seen a number of the Scottish regiments during the past year, both in the United Kingdom and when they have been stationed overseas.
There is a total understanding of the initial point made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) about the length and depth of the tradition of service in the armed forces in all parts of Scotland. I hope to show to hon. Members that the decision that we are debating in no way reflects any wish, intention or desire by the Government to loosen the ties between the armed services and Scotland. At the same time as the Government are taking this decision, they are also taking other decisions that represent an increased commitment and an increased expansion of the activities of the armed services in Scotland.
I well understand the concern and disappointment at the decision to close the Gordon barracks at Bridge of Don. The hon. Member for Gordon has voiced that concern again today, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Moray (Mr. Pollock) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). They expressed their concern, too, at a meeting with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, which was attended also by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone). My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy has also expressed to me his deep concern about this. I certainly understand the feelings that have been expressed and I should make it clear to Members on both sides of the House that the decision was not an easy one. Recognising the strong links between the barracks and the area over many years, we are very conscious of the disappointment involved.
None the less, I hope that hon. Members will understand the pressures on the defence budget and the consequent need to ensure that we get the best possible military value for the available expenditure. Those pressures inevitably led the Government to take a hard look at the ways in which we currently do things to see whether it was possible to achieve the same end result more cost effectively.
As part of that process, a study of the whole subject of army training was undertaken last year by General Groom. It was a very thorough and expert study. In essence, it found that our training organisation was simply too large


for either present or future needs. It showed that, although the army as a whole had steadily decreased, the training organisation had remained fairly static. In total, army training was costing more than £340 million per year and some 18 per cent. of all uniformed army personnel outside BAOR were employed in the training organisation. Those facts, to which the hon. Member for Gordon himself referred, are fundamental to an appreciation of the background to our decision.
The army training organisation is certainly effective. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. That its training standards are among the highest in the world is amply demonstrated not just by the army's performance in the field but by the number of foreign and Commonwealth Governments who welcome the chance to send students to our training courses. Given the costs and the manpower tied up in the training sector, however, it was necessary to examine whether it could be organised more efficiently while maintaining its traditionally high standards.
The Groom study made a number of recommendations offering opportunities for significant savings. Many of those recommendations are still being worked on. Because it offered the chance of fairly early savings and because it was comparatively self-contained, decisions on the junior training organisation were taken first and the Army Board concluded this summer that substantial savings could be achieved by concentrating junior training in fewer establishments.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister nevertheless acknowledge that in future there will be no junior training at all in Scotland and that that is a major departure?

Mr. Stanley: I shall be coming to that, although I should point out that training of junior leaders from Scotland, for example, is at present undertaken entirely outside Scotland so it is not a novel departure. Plenty of training of Scotsmen at both junior and adult level already takes place outside Scotland. However, I wish to give the House a balanced picture.
At present there are 21 establishments providing training for juniors. We calculated that by a better organisation of our resources it would be possible to reduce that number to 13. Some of the remaining establishments could continue to provide adult training, while others could be found an alternative use. However, I am afraid that given the overcapacity for training with which we started, two establishments were found to be surplus to our needs. They were the Gordon barracks at Bridge of Don and the Prince of Wales depot at Crickhowell. Those two establishments are the smallest infantry junior depots. That does not mean that they are not efficient. Both provide excellent training, but because of their overheads neither could be cost-effective in comparison with other larger establishments.
At present we estimate that about 3,000 juniors will be recruited into the infantry each year. They can be accommodated in just four larger establishments— Ouston, Shorncliffe, Pirbright and Flowerdown. It is never easy to take the decision to close an establishment and it is particularly difficult when, as in the case of Bridge of Don, the establishment has a long and distinguished link with the British Army. It was a hard decision to take. We weighed up very carefully the effects that it would have locally and the possible effects on morale and recruitment.

Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend talks of weighing up the possibilities. Did the Government consider either bringing in the junior leaders to Aberdeen, which would have been the best option from the point of view of keeping the establishment open, or taking the junior leaders from Shorncliffe to Milton Bridge and Glencorse and the juniors from Aberdeen to Glencorse and Milton Bridge, so as to retain a further training commitment in Scotland? That option would have been secondary to Aberdeen, but it would have been far superior to the decision that has been taken.

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall discuss the junior leaders in a moment and take up that point then.
Weighing the balance, we came to the conclusion that the manpower and financial case for going ahead with our plan for rationalising junior training was very strong. We estimate that under our revised plan for junior training as a whole, we shall be able to achieve civilian manpower savings of over 100 as well as providing considerable scope for releasing a significant number of servicemen from training to operational duties. Additionally, we should be able to obtain capital savings of about £8 million.
The decision to close the Bridge of Don barracks does not imply any lack of commitment on the part of the British Army towards Scotland. Even after the closure there will be a substantial Army presence in Scotland comprising two regular infantry battalions, 25 other regular units and 33 Territorial Army units including 11 of battalion or regimental size, with an additional seven Home Service Force companies forming in January 1985 including companies at Elgin and Aberdeen. We also plan to increase the TA in Scotland in a few years' time, including the creation of an air defence regiment based at Edinburgh and an airfield damage repair squadron at Kinloss.
There is also a substantial RAF presence, with two important stations at Kinloss and Lossiemouth, both of which receive heavy investment, and of course the Royal Marines have a large number of personnel at RM Condor, Arbroath, where it is planned that the barracks will undergo a major rebuild al a cost of £26 million.
The junior soldiers who are now trained at Bridge of Don will in future be trained at Ouston. The time that they will spend there will be comparatively short—about six months—after which they will return to complete their training in Scotland. The Scottish junior leaders who currently undertake their training at Shorncliffe on the east coast will in future be trained nearer to Scotland at Ouston. That will reduce the distance that they will have to travel from home. I do not believe—in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—that it would be in any way economic to preserve the Bridge of Don barracks simply to concentrate there the training of the Scottish junior leaders. The study showed that the best way of dealing with junior leadership training was at Ouston, outside Newcastle:. At least that has the merit of bringing Scottish junior leaders substantially closer to Scotland, although I fully understand that Newcastle is not Scotland.

Mr. McQuarrie: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Stanley: If I give way I shall not be able to deal with the important point that my hon. Friend raised in an intervention. Perhaps he would be very brief.

Mr. McQuarrie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the majority of recruits who go to the Gordon barracks come from the Highlands? Does he further agree that the barracks could be used fully for training and that, rather than take leaders away from Aberdeen, others could go to the Gordon barracks? Since 1976, millions of pounds have been spent on the barracks and the residential quarters for the families of soldiers. That money will be wasted if the barracks are no longer used by the Army.

Mr. Stanley: I understand that. We have done a full evaluation of existing establishments and those from which we can get the best economies of scale and lowest overheads, and I am afraid that it comes out unfavourably for the Gordon barracks and Bridge of Don. I am sorry about that.
I should like to deal with my hon. Friend's point about alternatives. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces is to visit the region to see the barracks and have further discussions with local representatives early next month. We have looked carefully to see whether there is any alternative service use for the barracks. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray raised that issue. Although no firm alternatives have presented themselves so far, we understand that there might be interest in the barracks from the Territorial Army

in the Aberdeen area. If it makes a costed proposal, I assure the House that it will receive urgent and sympathetic consideration. However, I must be frank—it would be wrong if I led the House to place too much hope on that possibility. I understand that it is no more than a suggestion. It is attractive but as yet uncosted and not presented to us. For it to be accepted, the proposal would have to demonstrate that it had a significant military purpose and that it would achieve savings in cost and manpower equivalent to those which would be produced by the closure.
As I said at the outset, we are faced with an urgent need to obtain the best possible value from our available resources. Nobody would be more pleased than I if it were possible to keep these barracks open on sound economic grounds, but it would not be right to suggest that they should be kept open regardless of the economic facts. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gordon for raising this issue and to my hon. Friends who have stayed late to hear the debate. I assure them that the importance of this issue in regard to how the Army achieves economies and to the local community fully justifies the debate and I assure the House that we are ready to consider urgently and sympathetically any proposals for an alternative use, provided that such alternative uses make military sense and do not dissipate the savings that we aim to achieve by closure.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.